USA TODAY's investigative report "Unfit for flight" found repeated instances in
which small-aircraft crashes were caused by defects and dangerous
designs. Letters to the editor:
Your investigative report "Unfit for flight"
presents a greatly distorted view of general aviation. The story cites
44,407 general aviation deaths in 50 years, and the claim of "carnage"
and a "massive and growing death toll."
The report declines to
note that more than half of those deaths happened more than 30 years
ago. In fact, National Transportation Safety Board figures show that
there has actually been a 75% decrease in fatalities from 1973 to today.
In 2012 alone, general aviation aircraft flew nearly 25 million flight
hours. General aviation — and Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association —
have been aggressive in pressing the FAA to make it easier and more
affordable for new technology and safety equipment to be installed in
the existing fleet of general aviation aircraft.
The results can
be seen in a safety record that has greatly improved over time, which
your articles simply ignored. USA TODAY's snapshots of court cases and
inflammatory headlines frankly do nothing to improve aviation safety.
They only distort the true picture.
Mark Baker, president, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association; Frederick, Md.
In
light of my previous negative experience working in industries affected
by regulatory agencies, I have been following your series "Unfit for
flight" intently. These agencies, overwhelmingly stuffed with executives
and cronies from the very industries being regulated, are really there
to promote their industry, not to protect the public.
There is
some weight to the argument that these corporate insiders' technical
expertise is needed to make wise regulatory decisions. However, wouldn't
it be better to have these agencies staffed by representatives of the
public they serve, with only a few subject-matter experts from the
industry being regulated? Perhaps such a solution is too "populistic"
for today's age of corporate bullyhood.
Vernon M. Kerr; Ellicott City, Md.
I
love USA TODAY for your exposés. The "Unfit for flight" series was one
of your best. It was a real eye-opener on an issue that I wasn't aware
of at all. I'll be more cautious about private flying from now on. Thank
you.
Bob Bowser; Flagstaff, Ariz.
Comments from Facebook are edited for clarity and grammar:
As
a former military pilot, I was stunned by the ignorance of this
so-called investigative piece. Often, the primary cause of aircraft
accidents is not the aircraft but the pilot. Many private pilots have
barely enough flight time to do little more than fly around in a
pattern. Any unusual situation occurs, and they are in trouble.
— Robert Newman
The
problem is that too many in aviation are too focused on the money. They
fail to do their jobs and don't pursue maximum aviation safety.
— Jeffrey Lewis
This
report was well-researched and interesting. I investigated accidents
for over 32 years as an FAA inspector. Many times, no government
investigator looked at the wreckage and took only the information
provided by the person involved in the accident, and the NTSB determined
the cause.
— Larry Williams
Comparing general aviation
safety records with those of airlines is flawed and disingenuous. The
rules governing the two are different.
— Brian Thomas
How
about letting the people who are educated on aviation do their jobs? USA
TODAY should focus instead on the fact that we're more likely to die on
the drive to the airport than on a flight.
— Eric Wilkins
Source: http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment