REVIEW ARTICLE

A Review of General Aviation Safety (1984–2017)

Douglas D. Boyd

INTRODUCTION: General aviation includes all civilian aviation apart from operations involving paid passenger transport. Unfortunately,
this category of aviation holds a lackluster safety record, accounting for 94% of civil aviation fatalities. In 2014, of 1143
general aviation accidents, 20% were fatal compared with 0 of 29 airline mishaps in the United States. Herein, research
findings over the past 30 yr will be reviewed. Accident risk factors (e.g., adverse weather, geographical region, post-
impact fire, gender differences) will be discussed. The review will also summarize the development and implementation
of stringent crashworthiness designs with multi-axis dynamic testing and head-injury protection and its impact on
mitigating occupant injury severity. The benefits and drawbacks of new technology and human factor considerations
associated with increased general aviation automation will be debated. Data on the safety of the aging general aviation
population and increased drug usage will also be described. Finally, areas in which general aviation occupant survival
could be improved and injury severity mitigated will be discussed with the view of equipping aircraft with 1) crash-
resistant fuel tanks to reduce post-impact conflagration; 2) after-market ballistic parachutes for older aircraft; and 3)
current generation electronic locator beacons to hasten site access by first responders.
KEYWORDS: general aviation, accident, injury, risk factor, aviation accident, human factors, aviation.

Boyd DD. A review of general aviation safety (1984–2017). Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2017; 88(7):657–664.

G
eneral aviation includes all civilian aviation apart from training approaches and technology; 2) the protective effect of
operations involving paid passenger transport such new aircraft crashworthiness designs on injury severity; 3)
as the airlines and charter operations. Unfortunately,
IP: 127.0.0.1 On: Mon, 27human
Mar 2023factors/aviation
03:14:24psychology; and 4) pilot physiology/toxi-
compared with airline operations, the rate of general
Copyright: aviation Medical
Aerospace cology. ItAssociation
should be noted, considering the breadth of general
accidents is substantially higher, notwithstanding Delivereda modest by aviation,
Ingentathis review will focus on fixed-wing aircraft certificated
decline over recent years (Fig. 1). Historically, general aviation, under 14CFR Part 23,24 excluding revenue-generating operations
34
mostly comprised of piston engine-powered aircraft, has such as crop-dusting, photography, or emergency medical trans-
accounted for the overwhelming majority (94%) of civil avia- port. The reader should also keep in mind that the majority of
tion fatalities,47 with 18–23% of accidents having a fatal out- general aviation safety studies are based on investigations under-
come.45,56 In 2014, of 1143 general aviation accidents, 236 (20%) taken in the United States, so caution should be exercised in
were fatal in the United States (Fig. 2). In comparison, of 29 extrapolating these findings to operations in other countries,
airline accidents for the same year, none were fatal. Therefore, where training and aircraft certification procedures may differ.
reducing general aviation accident rates represents an impor-
tant safety challenge for aviation.
As to financial burden, accidents for this sector of aviation METHODS
carry substantial annual costs ($1.6–4.6 billion). These values
represent expenses associated with injury (inclusive of hospi- A literature search was performed using the U.S. National
tal costs) and/or loss of life, accident investigations, loss of pay Library of Medicine search engine (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.
with a fatal accident, and loss of the aircraft.66 In all likelihood,
these financial outlays represent under-estimates since they do From the University of Texas, Houston, TX.
not take into account assessed litigation costs. This manuscript was received for review in February 2017. It was accepted for publication
In this review, various risk factors for general aviation acci- in May 2017.
Address correspondence to: Prof. Douglas Boyd, University of Texas, 1515 Holcombe
dents will be discussed. In addition, several topics not previ- Blvd., Houston, TX 77030; [email protected].
ously addressed in an earlier review of general aviation Reprint & Copyright © by the Aerospace Medical Association, Alexandria, VA.
accidents47 will be examined: 1) the potential impact of new DOI: https://doi.org/10.3357/AMHP.4862.2017

Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance  Vol. 88, No. 7  July 2017   657
GENERAL AVIATION SAFETY REVIEW—Boyd

General Aviation and Air Taxi Survey,34 respectively. A Poisson

probability distribution analysis23 was used to determine if
accident rate changed over time using the SPSS statistical pro-
gram (v. 23).

RESULTS

Risk Factors for General Aviation Accidents

Over the past three decades there have been several studies
undertaken to identify the risk factors associated with all or
fatal general aviation mishaps. These, as well as recent findings,
will be described in this section.
There are abundant data demonstrating that flight in
degraded visibility, such as clouds, rain, or fog [referred to as
instrument meteorological conditions (IMC)], requiring a pilot
Fig. 1.  Accident rates for domestic airlines and general aviation. The NTSB to control the aircraft by reference to instruments in the absence
accident database (Dec. 2016 release) was queried for accidents in the United
States for the period indicated. Airline and general aviation fleet hours were
of outside visual cues, increases the risk of a general aviation
from the Bureau of Transportation Studies and the General Aviation and Air Taxi mishap.5,47 This is of particular importance for unexpected/
Survey, respectively. Accident count is indicated by n. *P , 0.001, determined unplanned visual to IMC operations and especially pertinent to
by employing a Poisson probability distribution analysis and using the earliest airmen who are either not certified to fly by reference to instru-
year (2003) as reference. ments or for pilots who are no longer current in this environ-
ment. Thus, while only 9% of general aviation accidents occur
gov/pubmed) or Google Scholar (https://scholar.google.com/). during IMC, they account for 28% of all general aviation fatali-
Search terms used, individually or in a Boolean query, included: ties.47 Reinforcing this notion, Bazargan and Guzhva5 reported
general aviation, aviation accident, human factors, age, risk fac- that general aviation flight under degraded visual conditions
tor, psychology, weather, mountain, convection, fatal accident, carried a sevenfold increased risk of fatality.5 In addition, flight
crashworthiness, injury, injury severity, pilot error, automation, operations concurrently conducted under IMC and at night
electronic flight displays, survivability, HFACS, pilot health, further elevate the risk.8 Notwithstanding these sobering find-
toxicology, obesity, medication, drug. To determine accident ings, a recent temporal analysis showed a statistical decrease in
rates for domestic airlines and general aviation, the National the accident rate for instrument-qualified (but not for airmen
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident database (Dec. who were not certified for instrument flight) general aviation
2016 release)55 was queried for accidents in the United States. pilots in this challenging environment.64
Airline (domestic carriers) and general IP:aviation
127.0.0.1fleetOn:hours
Mon, 27 General
Mar 2023 aviation safety in the United States is heavily influ-
03:14:24
were from the Bureau of Transportation Studies16 Aerospace
Copyright: and the enced
Medical Association region.43 Indeed, flying over mountain-
by geographical
Delivered by ous and/or high elevation terrain poses a set of challenges
Ingenta
mostly relating to the weather. For example, severe, localized,
gusty winds and mountain waves, which may vary from the
synoptic forecast, are often associated with mountainous ter-
rain.27,39 Also, winds blowing perpendicular to a mountain
ridge can generate rotor patterns on the leeward side, poten-
tially leading to aircraft upset by virtue of exceeding the roll
authority of a small airplane. Mountain ranges may also create
downdrafts of greater than 1500 ft/min in excess of the climb
rate of many single engine piston aircraft.3,27,28 As to convective
activity, a moist air mass lifted orographically (due to a moun-
tain slope) may culminate in thunderstorms with a prevailing
unstable atmosphere.27 Regarding visibility, mountain weather
can be highly changeable, with rapid onset of degraded visibil-
ity.21 It should be noted that some of these weather conditions
may extend well beyond the immediate mountain environ-
ment. Mountain waves, for example, can propagate 70-100 nm
Fig. 2. Fatal accident rates for domestic airlines and general aviation. The NTSB downwind of a ridge.26,27,39 Finally, the climb performance of
accident database (Dec. 2016 release) was queried for fatal accidents in the
United States for the years indicated. Airline and general aviation fleet hours
normally aspirated (i.e., nonturbo-charged)29 piston engine-
were from the Bureau of Transportation Studies and the General Aviation and powered aircraft diminishes with altitude,28 potentially leading
Air Taxi Survey, respectively. Accident count is indicated by n. to high elevation accidents where the aircraft is unable to clear

658  Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance  Vol. 88, No. 7  July 2017
 GENERAL AVIATION SAFETY REVIEW—Boyd

rising terrain.3 Therefore, not surprisingly, a higher accident (IFR) certification of private pilots was associated with a higher
rate and a disproportionate increase in fatal mishaps are evident fatal accident rate using as reference their non-IFR certified
for general aviation operations in these regions. One study counterparts.63 However, caution should be exercised with the
reported that states characterized by mountainous terrain and latter study since, like the research of airline transport pilot cer-
high elevation carry a higher accident rate than those featuring tificated airmen, accident data were adjusted to the pilot popu-
low lying, relatively flat terrain (15.3 and 8.5 accidents per lation rather than the annual hours accrued by these separate
100,000 flight hours, respectively).43 The fatal accident rate is cohorts.
also greater—a study published over two decades past3 docu- Several research studies have investigated gender differences
mented a 68% increase in fatal general aviation mishaps in the in general aviation accidents. The preponderance of evidence
Colorado Rockies relative to the rest of the state. Later reports suggests that male pilots are at a higher risk for accidents.6,49
mirrored these findings again, showing a higher fatality rate for One possible reason may relate to observations that in some
accidents in the U.S. Rocky Mountains and Appalachia regions, neurocognitive tests, including that for attention, females out-
again characterized by their mountainous terrain when com- perform males.42 On the other hand, a recent study of training
1,40
pared with the Great Plains. accidents reported that female primary students were more
Planned flight distance has also been previously reported as likely to be involved in excess speed landing accidents.14 The
a risk factor for general aviation accidents. Thus, cross-country authors speculated that these types of mishaps could be related
flights (defined as .50 nm) carry a fourfold elevated risk of a to observations that males excel at spatial processing and motor
fatal outcome compared with those of shorter distance.58 A skills,42 attributes likely to promote the acquisition of landing
separate study reporting a 44% higher median distance for fatal skills.
accidents was consistent with these findings.12 In a prospective Published research on a postcrash fire as a risk factor for a
study, operations with an intended distance of 300 nm or longer fatal outcome is compelling. In an analysis of general aviation
were shown to carry an augmented risk of an accident (odds accidents spanning the period 1985–1999, Li and Baker46
ratio 4.6) compared with those of shorter planned distance.41 reported that accidents with post-impact fires were more than
O’Hare and Owen58 argued, from a human factors perspective, 13 times likely to be fatal than those accidents without a confla-
that the higher risk associated with longer planned distances gration. Similar findings were published in a study of 8411 acci-
may be related to the fact that pilots, facing adverse weather, dents for light aircraft60 and, more recently, for multiengine
are more likely to attempt to complete a flight closer to the piston aircraft.11 What is unclear from these studies, however, is
destination. whether occupants were unable to egress the aircraft prior to its
Studies of flight experience as a risk factor in general avia- conflagration due to a sustained head injury. As discussed in a
tion accidents have yielded conflicting results. One study6 later section on aircraft crashworthiness, new standards for
reported that airmen with more experience were more likely to general aviation airplane certification requires an assessment
be involved in fatal general aviation accidents. Conversely, a of occupant protection from serious head injuries in dynamic
separate report demonstrated a protective effect of flight experi- crash tests.52
48
ence on accidents involving pilot error. However, in
IP: 127.0.0.1 On:a third Perhaps
Mon, 27 Mar 2023 not surprisingly, considering the potential for
03:14:24
study,46 no association was found between flight experience
Copyright: unsuitable
Aerospace Medical terrain, off-airport landings carry an excess risk of a
Association
and fatal general aviation accidents. Delivered by fatal mishap. In a study of light aircraft (defined in that study as
Ingenta
Nondaylight operations, not surprisingly, are more hazard- 10 or fewer seats), accidents involving aircraft landing away
ous than those conducted during the day due partly to the from an airport were threefold more likely to be fatal than those
potential for spatial disorientation9 or reduced landing options occurring at an aerodrome.60 In a separate investigation46 of
in the event of a malfunction. An analysis of 667 accidents general aviation accidents in North Carolina and Maryland, an
occurring between 1985 and 1999 revealed a more than twofold even higher fatality risk (9.9) was documented for off-airport
higher risk of a fatal outcome for night flights.46 A more recent accidents. Although both studies included single and multien-
study on mishaps in twin-engine, general aviation aircraft for gine aircraft, the latter potentially confounding the analysis
the period spanning 2002–2012 confirmed an elevated risk of a (due to higher landing speeds and hence impact forces38), a
11
fatal outcome for operations conducted at night. recent study restricted to twin-engine airplanes again showed
Regarding pilot certification, independent studies have sup- an increased risk of a fatal mishap for off-airport crashes.11
ported the view that advanced airman certification reduces
accident risk. For example, airline transport pilot certified air- Improving Safety and Aircraft Accident Survival
men, while constituting 7.5% of the pilot population, only It can be argued that two complementary approaches can be
account for 3.5% of fatal accidents.61 However, it should be employed, proactively, to improve general aviation safety. First
noted that this study did not take into account differences in is by seeking improvements in pilot performance via training
general aviation flight hours among the various airman cohorts. and or currency requirements aided and abetted by advances in
Along similar lines but now correcting for differences in flight technology. The second method is to improve the probability
times, a study comparing commercial and private pilot-certified that pilot and passengers survive and/or injuries are mitigated
airmen reported a lower fatal accident rate for the former in an accident. Injuries in general aviation accidents are largely
group.15 Somewhat surprisingly though, instrument flight rule due to blunt force trauma and decelerative forces.69

Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance  Vol. 88, No. 7  July 2017   659
GENERAL AVIATION SAFETY REVIEW—Boyd

A plethora of studies have indicated that, unfortunately, pilot aircraft. Since 1965, aircraft have been required to protect occu-
error is a cause of, or factor in, the majority (55–85%) of general pants in a crash involving forces of: 9 G forward, 3 G upward, or
aviation accidents.22,48,58 In contrast, pilot error is cited in the 1.5 G sideward. Restraint mechanisms have also been improved.
minority (38%) of airline accidents.48 Recognizing this short- Shoulder harnesses were first required for front seats in 1977
coming in general aviation, the FAA in a partnership with and thereafter for all occupants25 in 1985.
industry and academia have since 2003 worked diligently However, subsequent research deemed the aforementioned
toward enhancing flight training programs (inclusive of flight crashworthiness requirements inadequate in protecting occu-
reviews for certificated airmen). The overall goal has been to pants in what should have been survivable accidents.69 As a
increase the relevance of training/currency to general aviation consequence, multi-axis dynamic tests were incorporated into
operations. Toward this end, a major focus has been managing the aircraft certification process in 1988 to demonstrate both
real-world challenges via scenario-based training, risk manage- occupant and seat-restraint system structural performance.25,67
ment, and single pilot resource management.32 Although this The first of these dynamic tests emphasized occupant vertical
program is still relatively new and its contribution to improving loading toward reducing spinal loading and paraplegic/quadri-
general aviation safety unclear, the decrease in general aviation plegic injury outcomes52 with 19 G forces for the first row of
accident rate witnessed for 2013 and 2014 is encouraging. seats. The second dynamic test assessed the occupancy restraint
The advent of affordable FAA-approved advanced aviation system and seat structural performance, taking into account
training devices for general aviation (commonly referred to as floor warpage, which occurs in 50% of accidents.52 The restraint
flight simulators) in the last decade may prove beneficial for system was required to withstand a minimum of 26 G for the
pilot currency in several respects. First it has been well known front seats and 21 G for other seat/restraint systems and protect
for decades68 that IFR-certificated airmen struggle to maintain the occupant from serious head injury.52 Alas, these dynamic
their instrument proficiency. Indeed, as discussed above, an tests for crashworthiness were not retroactive. Thus, aircraft
abundance of data have shown that flight in degraded visibility manufactured after 1988 but for which certification occurred
poses a hazard to general aviation safety.5,47 Second, airmen too prior to 1988 (e.g., Cessna 182) were/are not subject to these
often show a deficiency in single engine procedures following criteria.
engine failure in twin-engine aircraft.11 Increased usage of such Have these more stringent crashworthiness standards miti-
training devices could very well allow for these deficiencies to gated occupant injury severity? Indeed, research would suggest
be corrected. this to be the case. Injury severity in accidents involving air-
Electronic flight displays were first introduced into general craft certified to these standards were compared with those
aviation aircraft in 200353 and, with few if any exceptions, newly for airplanes manufactured over the identical time period
manufactured airplanes are equipped with such instrumenta- (1999–2012), but exempt from the new dynamic crash tests.
tion. Additionally, electronic flight displays are now offered This study clearly showed that for all accidents, as well as those
after-market for older general aviation aircraft. Although flight deemed survivable, occupant injury severity was reduced for
displays vary by manufacturer and model, they often hold sev- aircraft certified to the higher crashworthiness standards.12
eral advantages over the older analog displays they replace:
IP: 127.0.0.1 On:1) a 27 One
Mon, Mar other
2023issue pertinent to survivability merits discussion.
03:14:24
lower failure rate due to the absence of moving parts; 2)Aerospace
Copyright: provid- An analysis
Medical of general aviation accidents by the FAA indicated
Association
ing greater situational awareness via moving maps; 3) increased that
Delivered by one-third of such mishaps should have been survivable35
Ingenta
automation; and 4) providing onboard weather, the latter allow- had occupants used their restraint system. For occupants not
ing for strategic planning for convective weather avoidance. As using the restraint system, an encounter with the airplane con-
to the last benefit, it should be noted that thunderstorms still trols or instrument panel can lead to serious or fatal injury.35
pose a threat to general aviation. A query of the NTSB accident Indeed, prior research has shown a clear benefit in shoulder
database has shown, on average, seven thunderstorm-related harness restraint affording occupant protection.54 Unfortu-
accidents annually over the past two decades. nately, past accident analyses have indicated under-utilization
Notwithstanding such potential benefits, an earlier study of this component of the restraint system,54 although a more
conducted by the NTSB found little enhanced safety for such recent study documented a substantially higher compliance for
equipped aircraft.53 However, it should be emphasized that this aircraft with separate lap belt and shoulder harness.12
study was based on airframe number rather than fleet air-time, Equally importantly, for remotely located accident sites with
so caution should be exercised in interpreting these findings. poor accessibility to first responders, postcrash survivability
Another point worthy of discussion is the potential for degraded may also depend on time to rescue. This is of particular impor-
manual flying skills with over-use of automation. As discussed tance where adverse ambient temperatures prevail and/or in
later, a study of professional airline pilots revealed subpar man- the event of life-threatening injuries which need to be expedi-
ual flying skills in a simulator study where automation was pro- ently addressed. A prerequisite for rescue personnel reaching
gressively disabled.18 the accident site is determination of its location. For remote
In addition to the aforementioned proactive approaches via locations, this will likely depend on activation of the emergency
training/currency/improved avionics, the NTSB and the Fed- locator transmitter (ELT) equipment mandatory in the United
eral Aviation Administration (FAA) have in the past striven States for general aviation operations per CFR 91.207. These
for enhancements in the crashworthiness of general aviation units can be divided into two types: 1) a newer generation

660  Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance  Vol. 88, No. 7  July 2017
 GENERAL AVIATION SAFETY REVIEW—Boyd

406 MHz transmitting; and 2) older generation 121.5 MHz- pilots in that study was not stated. In a separate study under-
broadcasting units.57 The former group is superior in accuracy taken with airline pilots,18 an association between task-unre-
and shows a higher rate of activation in an accident.57 Indeed, lated thoughts and prolonged struggles in resolving conflicting
search and rescue crews are able to access the accident site, instrument indications was identified. The authors concluded
on average, 6 h faster compared with mishaps involving air- that the retention of cognitive skills required for manual flying
craft equipped with the older generation (121.5-transmitting) depended to a high degree on airmen being actively engaged
ELTs.57 Unfortunately, as of 2014, only 22% of U.S. general avia- in supervising the automation. These findings are particu-
tion aircraft were equipped with 406 MHz-transmitting ELTs.34 larly germane to general aviation, where automation (in com-
mon parlance, “set it and forget it”) is becoming increasingly
Human Factors commonplace.
So far, while this review has discussed risk factors associated
with general aviation accidents and postmishap survival, it is Pilot Health and Toxicology
also important to consider human factors leading up to the In this section, health issues relevant to the general aviation
event. Indeed, the methodology (Human Factors And Classifi- pilot and of growing concern over the past decade will be dis-
cation System—HFACS) for examining such issues in aviation cussed. These include obesity, pilot aging, and the use of poten-
is well established,59,65 but has been under-used for general tially cognitive-impairing medications.
aviation.22 This may be partly related to the fact that general One of the greatest concerns over recent years has been the
aviation accident reports (and especially those which are non- growing obesity epidemic across the United States, with 35%
fatal) rarely capture elements such as organizational influence, of Americans currently categorized as obese [body mass index
adverse mental and physiological states, or resource manage- (BMI)  30 kg · m22].20,37 Regarding flight safety, increased
65
ment, all required for such analyses. aircraft weight adversely affects aircraft performance in a vari-
Nevertheless, there are several non-HFACS studies which ety of flight parameters (longer takeoff and landing distances,
have sought to identify human factors in general aviation pilot degraded climb gradients).30,31 Moreover, airframe failure may
decision-making. In a retrospective study of Alaskan pilots as to occur under turbulent flight conditions when the aircraft is
previously completed flights,7 several situations (rescue opera- loaded beyond its maximum certified weight.62 Indeed, a recent
tions, meeting significant others, time constraints, financial study reported a persistent rate of general aviation accidents
pressures) were identified as motivating pilots to unsafe behav- related to exceedance of the maximum certified aircraft
iors. In a similar vein, physical discomfort, or the lack of main- weight,13 although it was unclear if this weight exceedance
tenance facilities or lodgings at an airport were likely to motivate was due to occupants or luggage. Nevertheless, over half of
a pilot away from safe behavior.7 these types of accidents had a fatal outcome much higher than
In-flight decision-making is another element of aviation the 21% for mishaps unrelated to operating the aircraft out-
critical in a dynamically changing environment, especially in side of this limit. Another concern related to obesity is the
the context of weather, and has been the subject of several stud- potential for sleep apnea,36,50 since nearly all (90%) individu-
ies. In the face of adverse weather, general aviation pilots
IP: 127.0.0.1 On:show
Mon, 27alsMar
with a BMI
2023 in excess of 40 are positive for this condition.
03:14:24
bias toward completing flights,58,70 especially after the
Copyright: midway Medical
Aerospace Not surprisingly, one of the manifestations of sleep apnea is
Association
point.4 In the study of Batt and O’Hare,4 the researchers Ingenta impairment36 and, hence, its negative impact on an
dem- by cognitive
Delivered
onstrated that 66% of airmen flew from visual to instrument airman’s duties.
conditions after the midpoint of the flight compared with 33% The general aviation population is also aging64 and, unlike
prior to reaching that point. On the other hand, technology air carrier operations, there is no upper limit by which an air-
may enhance the decision-making process. In a simulator man must terminate his/her flying privileges. Nevertheless,
study, Ahlstrom and coinvestigators2 reported a positive effect research has demonstrated that older airmen are at higher risk
of portable weather data in promoting weather situation aware- for accidents than their younger counterparts.6,46,49 Indeed, in a
ness and decision-making regarding thunderstorm avoidance. flight simulator study of 72 general aviation pilots, older pilots
Pilots equipped with onboard weather data were more likely were more likely to make poor in-flight decisions and show less
to make larger route deviations and maintain greater dis- precise flight control during approach to landing in degraded
tance from convective weather. Importantly, these airmen also visibility.44 However, these researchers also found that expertise
showed higher cognitive engagement than those not provided attenuated the age-related decline.44 In a separate study of 32
2
with such information. These findings are important consider- general aviation pilots, while a decline of mental processing was
ing the increased prevalence of in-flight weather data in the evident for older airmen, wide interindividual variability was
general aviation cockpit.34 evident and the authors concluded that cognitive assessment,
However, research has also shown that technology may have rather than chronological age, was superior in predicting flight
a detrimental impact on aviation safety. An early report10 performance.19
examining 35,000 NASA Aviation Safety and Reporting System Increased usage of potentially cognitive-impairing medica-
records determined that boredom and complacency associated tions and illicit drugs in general aviation pilots is also of grow-
with increased automation were factors contributing to loss of ing concern. In a study of 1353 pilots (the vast majority were
aircraft separation. However, the number of general aviation general aviation airmen) who perished in aviation crashes,

Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance  Vol. 88, No. 7  July 2017   661
GENERAL AVIATION SAFETY REVIEW—Boyd

diphenhydramine, an antihistamine, was the most commonly Another area worthy of pursuit is improved occupant sur-
found drug and its usage increased threefold over the preceding vivability. Specifically, how can injury severity be mitigated for
two decades.17 A third of airmen were positive for prescription the older general aviation fleet exempted from the more current
medications, with 89% of these being general aviation pilots.17 crashworthiness standards? Indeed, the high cost of a new air-
Additionally, usage of citalopram (a selective serotonin reup- craft purchase (. $250,000) means that in all likelihood the
take inhibitor), the use of which could disqualify an airman for majority of the general aviation fleet will, for the foreseeable
medical certification, doubled from 0.7 to 1.8%. A more recent future, be comprised of aircraft certificated to the lower crash-
toxicology study on 6677 fatally injured pilots reported similar worthiness standards. For such aircraft, installation of after-
findings.51 Overall, 20% of pilots were positive for potentially market airbags, proven effective in reducing injury severity,54
cognitive-impairing drugs. Over the study period (1990–2012) could represent a cost-viable means. A second option would be
more than 7% of airmen were positive for sedating antihista- for such aircraft to be installed with after-market ballistic para-
mine medicines and, as in the prior study, diphenhydramine chutes, which may prove efficacious with loss of control events
was the most frequent drug identified in tissue samples. Inter- or where off-airport landing sites are unsuitable. Another issue
estingly, marijuana use showed an increase mostly over the related to survivability is under-usage of the shoulder harness54
latter decade of the study.51 for systems where this component and the lap belt are separate.
Introducing an annunciation system to alert airmen as to the
disengagement of the shoulder harness or an interlocking sys-
DISCUSSION tem could potentially reduce injury severity. Also, owners/
operators and especially those who operate in remote areas
Advances in technology (e.g., onboard weather data, automa- should be encouraged to upgrade ELTs to 406 MHz transmit-
tion) and a shift to scenario-based training bode well for ting units in order to reduce rescue times. Finally, keeping in
improvement in general aviation. Indeed, the decline (albeit mind the high fatality risk with postimpact fires, manufacturers
modest) in accident rate over the last few years is consistent should consider the development of crash-resistant fuel tanks
with this premise. Wider adoption of new technology, nota- for airplanes akin to those mandated for rotor-craft.33 Indeed,
71
bly angle of attack indicators and synthetic vision, could such equipage should be made easier with the recent modifica-
also improve general aviation safety. That said, enthusiasm in tion of the 14CFR 23 regulations toward consensus-based
embracing any new technology should be tempered by a thor- standards.
ough knowledge of its limitations and any unintended effect As to future general aviation safety research, several areas
on pilot performance. First and foremost, any use of technol- are worth pursuing. For example, with the advancing age of the
ogy should not allow for the decay of manual flying skills. Sec- general aviation population,64 their increased accident risk,49
ond, airmen need to be cognizant as to the limitations of a and the potential for diminished cognitive function,19 how well
new technology, e.g., delay in data-linked imagery (Fig. 3), do these airmen perform in technologically advanced aircraft?
absence of wind-shear information, and delay in traffic infor- Such aircraft are showing an increased presence in the general
mation (for non-ADS-B equipped aircraft) displayedOn:
IP: 127.0.0.1 in the
Mon, 27 aviation fleet.34,53
Mar 2023 Another question is how does the perfor-
03:14:24
cockpit via the Traffic Information Service Broadcast
Copyright: (FAR/
Aerospace mance
Medical of Association
the renter pilot compare with the aircraft owner con-
AIM 4-5-8c). Delivered by sidering
Ingentathe varied equipment (including aircraft of same make/
model but with different avionics)
that the former airman may use?
Lastly, future research should
address the impact of the Small
Airplane Revitalization Act of
2013 (Public Law 113-53) on
general aviation safety. This law
has been promulgated in the
form of light aircraft certifica-
tion per 14CFR Part 23,24 effec-
tive as of late 2016. Specifically,
are consensus-based standards
(developed by voluntary consen-
sus standard bodies) for aircraft
manufacture and retrofitting of
existing aircraft with new safety
Fig. 3. Delay in in-flight data-linked convective activity display. Aircraft position was determined from a commercially technologies as effective in main-
available web-based flight-tracking program. Weather data were from CoSPA (https://cospa.wx.ll.mit.edu). A) Weather
display corresponds to what would have been displayed to the pilot at the indicated aircraft position based on a 6-min
taining general aviation safety
delay associated with in-flight data-linked weather products. B) The image corresponds to the real-time proximity of compared with certification meth-
the convective weather to the aircraft. ods used prior to 2016?

662  Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance  Vol. 88, No. 7  July 2017
 GENERAL AVIATION SAFETY REVIEW—Boyd

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 23. Dobson AJ, Barnett AG. Poisson regression and log-linear models. An
introduction to generalized linear models. In: Carlin BP, Faraway JJ,
Tanner M, Zidek J. Texts in statistical science series. Boca Raton (FL):
Author and affiliations: Douglas Boyd, Ph.D., University of Texas, Houston, TX.
Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2008.
24. Electronic Code of Federal Regulation. Airworthiness standards:
normal, utility, acrobatic and commuter category airplanes. [Accessed
June 2014]. Available from http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID
REFERENCES 55ffea7e4489b0113fefc117f1b9fc96a&mc5true&node5pt14.1.23&rg
n5div5#se14.1.23_11.
1. Aguiar MA, Stolzer A, Boyd DD. Rates and causes of accidents in general 25. Electronic Code of Federal Regulation. Emergency landing conditions.
aviation aircraft operating in mountainous and high elevation terrain 2016. [Accessed June 2014]. Available from http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/
environment. Accid Anal Prev. 2017; (in press). text-idx?SID5eb5c2484236928b8e80e743d2b5528e3&mc5true&node5
2. Ahlstrom U, Ohneiser O, Caddigan E. Portable weather applications for pt14.1.23&rgn5div5 http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID5eb5c2484
general aviation pilots. Hum Factors. 2016; 58(6):864–885. 236928b8e80e743d2b5528e3&mc5true&node5pt14.1.23&rgn5div5.
3. Baker SP, Lamb MW. Hazards of mountain flying: crashes in the 26. Federal Aviation Administration. Aviation weather for pilots and flight
Colorado Rockies. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1989; 60(6):531–536. operations personnel. AC 00-6A, 83-84. Washington (DC): U.S. Depart­
4. Batt R, O’Hare D. Pilot behaviors in the face of adverse weather: a ment of Transportation; 1975.
new look at an old problem. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2005; 76(6): 27. Federal Aviation Administration. Hazardous mountain winds and their
552–559. visual indicators. AC 00-57, 1-90. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of
5. Bazargan M, Guzhva VS. Factors contributing to fatalities in general Transportation; 1997.
aviation accidents. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research. 28. Federal Aviation Administration. Tips on mountain flying. AFS-803 (FAA-
2007; 1(2):170–182. P-8740-60A). Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Transportation;
6. Bazargan M, Guzhva VS. Impact of gender, age and experience of pilots 1999. [Accessed June 2014]. Available from https://www.faa.gov/
on general aviation accidents. Accid Anal Prev. 2011; 43(3):962–970. regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/media/tips_on_
7. Bearman C, Paletz SB, Orasanu J. Situational pressures on aviation mountain_flying.pdf.
decision making: goal seduction and situation aversion. Aviat Space 29. Federal Aviation Administration. Turbocharging. Airplane flying
Environ Med. 2009; 80(6):556–560. handbook. FAA-H-8083-30[11], 7–9. Washington (DC): U.S. Department
8. Bennett CT, Schwirzke M. Analysis of accidents during instrument of Transportation; 2004.
approaches. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1992; 63(4):253–261. 30. Federal Aviation Administration. Aircraft weight and balance. Aviation
9. Benson AJ. Spatial disorientation: general aspects. In: Ernsting J, maintenance handbook general (FAA-H-8038-30). 4-01-4-34. Oklahoma
Nicholson AN, Rainford DJ. Aviation medicine, 3rd ed. Oxford (England): City (OK): U.S. Department of Transportation; 2008.
Butterworth Heinemann; 1999:419–454. 31. Federal Aviation Administration. Takeoff and landing performance
10. Billings CE, Reynard WD. Human factors in aircraft incidents: results of (FAA-H-8083-25A). Pilots handbook of aeronautical knowledge. 10-
a 7-year study. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1984; 55(10):960–965. 11-10-13. Oklahoma City (OK): U.S. Department of Transportation;
11. Boyd DD. Causes and risk factors for fatal accidents in non-commercial 2008.
twin engine piston general aviation aircraft. Accid Anal Prev. 2015; 32. Federal Aviation Administration. FAA-industry training standards
77:113–119. (FITS). [Accessed July 1, 2016]. Available from https://www.faa.gov/
12. Boyd DD. Occupant injury and fatality in general aviation aircraft for training_testing/training/fits/.
which dynamic crash testing is certification-mandated. Accid Anal Prev. 33. Federal Aviation Administration. Airworthiness standards: normal and
2015; 79:182–189. transport category rotorcraft. [Accessed Aug. 1, 2015]. Available from
13. Boyd DD. General aviation accidents related IP: to
127.0.0.1
exceedanceOn: Mon, 27 Mar
of airplane 2023 03:14:24
http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.
Copyright:
weight/center of gravity limits. Accid Anal Prev. Aerospace Medical
2016; 91:19–23. nsf/. Association
14. Boyd DD, Dittmer P. Accident rates, phase of operations,Delivered and injury by Ingenta
34. Federal Aviation Administration. General aviation and part 135 activity
severity for solo students in pursuit of private pilot certification (1994– surveys. [Accessed Dec. 2016]. Available from http://www.faa.gov/data_
2013). Journal of Aviation Technology and Engineering. 2016; 6(1):44–52. research/aviation_data_statistics/general_aviation
15. Boyd DD, Peters C. Should charity air medical organizations require 35. Federal Aviation Administration. Aircraft restraint systems, survivable
commercial certification of their pilots. Air Med J. 2015; 34(4):188–194. accidents and recommendations. [Accessed July 1, 2016]. Available from
16. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. U.S. Air Carrier Traffic Statistics. https://www.faa.gov/aircraft/gen_av/harness_kits/system_accidents/.
[Accessed Aug. 1, 2016.] Available from https://www.transtats.bts.gov/ 36. Federal Aviation Administration. Decision considerations disease
TRAFFIC/. protocols – obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). [Accessed Mar. 1, 2017].
17. Canfield DV, Dubowski KM, Chaturvedi AK, Whinnery JE. Drugs and Available from https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_
alcohol found in civil aviation accident pilot fatalities from 2004-2008. offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/dec_cons/disease_prot/osa/.
Aviat Space Environ Med. 2012; 83(8):764–770. 37. Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Kit BK, Ogden CL. Prevalence of obesity and
18. Casner SM, Geven RW, Recker MP, Schooler JW. The retention of trends in the distribution of body mass index among US adults, 1999–
manual flying skills in the automated cockpit. Hum Factors. 2014; 56(8): 2010. JAMA. 2012; 307(5):491–497.
1506–1516. 38. Freitas PJ. Passenger aviation security, risk management and simple
19. Causse M, Dehais F, Arexis M, Pastor J. Cognitive aging and flight physics. Journal of Transportation Security. 2014; 5(2):107–122.
performance in general aviation pilots. Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging 39. Gaffin D. What are mountain waves? [Accessed June 1, 2016]. Available
Neuropsychol Cogn. 2011; 18(5):544–561. from http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mrx/?n5mountainwaves.
20. Center for Disease Control (CDC). Adult obesity facts. [Accessed Aug. 1, 40. Grabowski JG, Curriero FC, Baker SP, Guohua L. Exploratory spatial
2015]. Available from http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html. analysis of pilot fatality rates in general aviation crashes using geographic
21. Colorado State University. Learn about the climate of Colorado. information systems. Am J Epidemiol. 2002; 155(5):398–405.
[Accessed June 1, 2016]. Available from http://climate.colostate.edu/ 41. Groff LS, Price JM. General aviation accidents in degraded visibility:
co_climate.html. a case control study of 72 accidents. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2006;
22. Dambier M, Hinkelbein J. Analysis of 2004 German general aviation 77(10):1062–1067.
aircraft accidents according to the HFACS model. Air Med J. 2006; 42. Gur RC, Richard J, Calkins ME, Chiavacci R, Hansen JA, et al.
25(6):265–269. Age group and sex differences in performance on a computerized

Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance  Vol. 88, No. 7  July 2017   663
GENERAL AVIATION SAFETY REVIEW—Boyd

neurocognitive battery in children age 8-21. Neuropsychology. 2012; 57. NOAA. Search and rescue satellite aided tracking. [Accessed Sept. 1,
26(2):251–265. 2016]. Available from http://www.sarsat.noaa.gov/emerbcns.html
43. Kearney PJ, Li G. Geographic variations in crash risk of general aviation 58. O’Hare D, Owen D. Cross-country VFR crashes: pilot and contextual
and air taxis. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2000; 71(1):19–21. factors. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2002; 73(4):363–366.
44. Kennedy Q, Taylor JL, Reade G, Yesavage JA. Age and expertise effects 59. Reason J. The contribution of latent human failures to the breakdown
in aviation decision-making and flight control in a flight simulator. Aviat of complex systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1990; 327(1241):
Space Environ Med. 2010; 81(5):489–497. 475–484.
45. Kenny D, author; Knill B, Smith M, Vasconcelos K, editors. 24th Joseph T. 60. Rostykus PS, Cummings P, Mueller BA. Risk factors for pilot fatalities in
Nall Report. Frederick (MD): AOPA Foundaton; 2015. general aviation airplane crash landings. JAMA. 1998; 280(11):997–999.
46. Li G, Baker SP. Correlates of pilot fatality in general aviation crashes. Aviat 61. Salvatore S, Stearns MD, Huntley MS, Mengert P. Air transport pilot
Space Environ Med. 1999; 70(4):305–309. involvement in general aviation accidents. Ergonomics. 1986; 29(11):
47. Li G, Baker SP. Crash risk in general aviation. JAMA. 2007; 297(14): 1455–1467.
1596–1598. 62. Schiff B. Flying in turbulence. In: Schiff B. The Proficient Pilot, chapter 4.
48. Li G, Baker SP, Grabowski JG, Rebok GW. Factors associated with pilot Newcastle: Aviation Supplies and Academics Inc.; 2001:29–34.
error in aviation crashes. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2001; 72(1):52–58. 63. Shao BS, Guindani M, Boyd DD. Causes of fatal accidents for instrument-
49. Li G, Baker SP, Quiang Y, Grabowski JG, McCarthy ML. Driving-while- certified and non-certified private pilots. Accid Anal Prev. 2014; 72:
intoxicated as risk marker for general aviation pilots. Accid Anal Prev. 370–375.
2005; 37(1):179–184. 64. Shao BS, Guindani M, Boyd DD. Fatal accident rates for instrument-rated
50. Malnick SDH, Knobler H. The medical complications of obesity. QJM. private pilots. Aviat Space Environ Med. 2014; 85(5):631–637.
2006; 99(9):565–579. 65. Shappell SA, Wiegmann DA. Applying Reason: the human factors and
51. McKay MP, Groff LS. 23 years of toxicology testing fatally injured pilots: classification system (HFACS). Human Factors and Aerospace Safety.
implications for aviation and other modes of transportation. Accid Anal 2001; 1(1):59–86.
Prev. 2016; 90:108–117. 66. Sobieralski JB. The cost of general aviation accidents in the United States.
52. National Transportation Safety Board. General aviation crashworthiness Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice. 2013; 47:19–27.
project: phase 3-acceleration loads and velocity changes of survivable 67. Soltis SJ, Olcott JW. The development of dynamic performance standards
general aviation accidents, safety report. SR-85/02. Washington (DC): for general aviation aircraft seats. Warrendale (PA): SAE International;
National Safety Transportation Board; 1985. 1985:39–54. SAE Technical Paper 850853.
53. National Transportation Safety Board. Introduction of glass cockpit 68. Weislogel GS. Study to determine the IFR operational profile and
avionics into light aircraft. PB2010-917001. Washington (DC): National problems of the general aviation single pilot. NASA-CR-3576, NAS
Transportation Safety Board; 2010. 1.26:3576. Washington (DC): NASA; 1983.
54. National Transportation Safety Board. Airbag performance in general 69. Wiegmann DA, Taneja N. Analysis of injuries among pilots involved
aviation restraint systems, safety report. SS-11/01, Appendix B. Washington in fatal general aviation airplanes accidents. Accid Anal Prev. 2003;
(DC): National Transportation Safety Board; 2011. 35(4):571–577.
55. National Transportation Safety Board. NTSB accident database. [Accessed 70. Wiggins M, O’Hare D. Weatherwise: evaluation of a cue-based training
Oct. 1, 2015]. Available from http://app.ntsb.gov/avdata/Access/. approach for the recognition of deteriorating weather conditions during
56. Neuhaus C, Dambier M, Glaser E, Schwalbe M, Hinkelbein J. Probabilities flight. Hum Factors. 2003; 45(2):337–345.
for severe and fatal injuries in general aviaton accidents. J Aircr. 2010; 71. Wilson J. X-ray vision and alphabet soup. Decoding GA vision systems.
47(6):2017–2020. FAA Safety Briefing May/June 2016:25–27. Washington (DC): FAA; 2016.

IP: 127.0.0.1 On: Mon, 27 Mar 2023 03:14:24

Copyright: Aerospace Medical Association
Delivered by Ingenta

664  Aerospace Medicine and Human Performance  Vol. 88, No. 7  July 2017