Download
u s rotorcraft accident data and statistics n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
U.S. Rotorcraft Accident Data and Statistics PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
U.S. Rotorcraft Accident Data and Statistics

U.S. Rotorcraft Accident Data and Statistics

179 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

U.S. Rotorcraft Accident Data and Statistics

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. U.S. Rotorcraft Accident Data and Statistics Presented to: 2012 FAA/Industry Safety Forum By: Lee Roskop, Operations Research Analyst Date: Jan 2012

  2. U.S. Registered Rotorcraft Accidents 30 Year History: 1982-2011

  3. U.S. Registered Rotorcraft Accidents Focus on 10 Year History: 2001-2010

  4. Progressing from accident totals to accident rates requires flight hours. The FAA’s General Aviation and Part 135 Activity Survey is the source for U.S. rotorcraft flight hour estimates used calculations used in this presentation.

  5. U.S. Registered Rotorcraft Accidents Estimated Accident Rates: 2001-2010

  6. U.S. Registered Rotorcraft Accidents Estimated Accident Rates: 2001-2010 Start of IHST initiative and goal to reduce accident rate 80% in 10 years 2006 – 2010: IHST was analysis centered 2011 – 2015: IHST is implementation centered IHST’s goal is a rate of 1.8 by 2016. *

  7. What are the usual environmental conditions for rotorcraft accidents? • Based on NTSB data for U.S. rotorcraft accidents from 2001-2010: Over 88% occur in daylight conditions Over 95% occur in VMC

  8. What industry sectors result in the most rotorcraft accidents? Helicopter EMS?

  9. What industry sectors result in the most rotorcraft accidents? Helicopter EMS? Air Tour?

  10. What industry sectors result in the most rotorcraft accidents? Helicopter EMS? Air Tour? Offshore?

  11. What industry sectors result in the most rotorcraft accidents? Helicopter EMS? Air Tour? Offshore?

  12. Rotorcraft Accidents by NTSB Classification10 Years from CY01 to CY10 – 1,672 Accidents External Load 1.9% 6 Other Categories 1.5% Aerial Observation 3.3% Flight Test 1.4% Business 4.7% Positioning 4.9% Instruction/Training 21.7% Other Work 7.4% EMS 7.8% Personal/Private 20.0% Public Use 7.8% Aerial Application 8.2% Not Categorized 9.3%

  13. IHST’s Analysis of U.S. AccidentsCYs 2000, 2001, 2006 – 523 accidents Electronic News Gathering 1.7% Personal/Private 18.5% Utilities Patrol/Construction 2.1% External Load 2.7% Logging 2.7% Instruction/Training 17.6% Firefighting 3.6% Offshore 4.2% Aerial Observation 4.2% Business 4.8% Aerial Application 10.3% Air Tour / Sightseeing 5.9% Law Enforcement 6.5% Emergency Medical Services 7.6% Commercial 7.5%

  14. 2011 Analysis of U.S. Accidents Offshore 0.8% Firefighting 0.8% Business 1.6% Personal/Private 27.6% Air Tour / Sightseeing 1.6% Utilities Patrol/Construction 2.4% External Load 2.4% Law Enforcement 3.1% Aerial Observation 4.7% Instruction/Training 18.9% Emergency Medical Services 6.3% Commercial 11.0% Aerial Application 18.9%

  15. Hopefully the last few slides left you with a better impression than this… …but percentage of accidents within each industry sector is only half of the story.

  16. Personal/Private Accidents Compared to Flight Hours

  17. Instruction/Training Accidents Compared to Flight Hours

  18. Aerial Application Accidents Compared to Flight Hours

  19. HEMS Accidents Compared to Flight Hours

  20. Accident rate comparison HEMS 2001 – 2010 3.9 accidents per 100,000 flight hours

  21. Accident rate comparison HEMS 2001 – 2010 3.9 accidents per 100,000 flight hours Personal/Private 2001 – 2010 29.6 accidents per 100,000 flight hours Over 7 Times Higher than Helicopter EMS

  22. Another approach to examining rotorcraft accident trends: Cro Amsaa

  23. Cro Amsaa? …is not this (Cro Magnon).

  24. Cro Amsaa …is not this (Cro Magnon). …but is this!

  25. Cro Amsaa Analysis

  26. Cro Amsaa Analysis The value of Beta tells a story about the safety of our system If Beta = 1: safety of the system is not changing If Beta > 1: failures occurring faster If Beta < 1: failures occurring slower All Accidents CY 01 - 10 All Accidents CY 01 - 05 All Accidents CY 06 - 10

  27. Cro Amsaa Analysis Bottom line: Overall, the safety of our system got slightly better from 2001 to 2010. Comparatively, 2001 to 2005: system safety was stagnant to slightly deteriorating 2006 to 2010: system safety was improving All Accidents CY 01 - 10 All Accidents CY 01 - 05 All Accidents CY 06 - 10

  28. Cro Amsaa – All Rotorcraft Accidents Our Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) offers further confirmation of a system that is trending toward better safety the last 5 years: Note the increase in the MTBF for 2006 to 2010 in comparison to 2001 to 2005. All Accidents CY 01 - 10 All Accidents CY 01 - 05 All Accidents CY 06 - 10

  29. Cro Amsaa - Only Personal/Private Personal/Private Accidents CY 01 - 10 Personal/Private Accidents CY 01 - 05 Personal/Private Accidents CY 06 - 10

  30. Cro Amsaa - Only Personal/Private Although the Personal/Private sector improved from 2006 to 2010, the sector still lags behind the beta of the overall system for every block of years examined. Beta values of overall system during same block of years Personal/Private Accidents CY 01 - 10 0.938 Personal/Private Accidents CY 01 - 05 1.026 Personal/Private Accidents CY 06 - 10 0.849

  31. Cro Amsaa - Only Personal/Private Using MTBF as a measurement, Personal/Private improved from 2006 to 2010 as compared to 2001 to 2005. Personal/Private Accidents CY 01 – 10c Personal/Private Accidents CY 01 - 05 Personal/Private Accidents CY 06 - 10

  32. Cro Amsaa - Only Personal/Private The Personal/Private MTBF did improve by 2.5 days from 2006 to 2010 as compared to 2001 to 2005. But the MTBFs don’t compare favorably to other industry sectors, e.g. HEMS. 30.23 HEMS MTBF CY 01 – 10: Personal/Private Accidents CY 01 - 10 25.05 HEMS MTBF CY 01 – 05: Personal/Private Accidents CY 01 - 05 31.35 HEMS MTBF CY 06 – 10: Personal/Private Accidents CY 06 - 10

  33. Gathering data on U.S. rotorcraft can be difficult, but we’re not so desperate that we’ve resorted to this technique yet.

  34. What do we know about Personal/Private rotorcraft accidents? • The IHST’s study of 523 U.S. accidents across 3 years provides the most complete analysis of: • What happened (Occurrence Categories) • Why it happened (Problem Statements) • How it could have been prevented (Intervention Recommendations) • The next several slides will look specifically at these areas for the 97 Personal/Private accidents (18.5% of the 523 total accidents) in the IHST’s U.S. data set.

  35. Personal/Private Accidents:Occurrence Categories tell “What happened?”

  36. Personal/Private Accidents:More about “Loss of Control” • Loss of control occurrences were further divided into more specific sub-areas. • For Personal/Private, the Loss of Control sub-areas most frequently cited were (in descending order): • Performance Management • Exceeded Operating Limits • Lost Tail Rotor Authority

  37. Personal/Private Accidents:Problem Statements tell “Why did it happen?”

  38. Personal/Private Accidents:Problem Statements tell “Why did it happen?” For purposes of this presentation we will take a closer look at just a couple of the problem statements.

  39. Personal/Private Accidents:Further details for selected problem statements • “Pilot Judgment & Actions” problems most frequently occurred in the following sub-areas: • Decision Making, Landing Procedures, Procedure Implementation, Flight Profile • “Pilot Situational Awareness” problems most frequently occurred in the following sub-areas: • Awareness of External Environment, Awareness of Visibility/Weather, Awareness of Internal Aircraft Issues

  40. Personal/Private Accidents:Intervention Recommendations tell “How it could have been prevented”

  41. Personal/Private Accidents:Intervention Recommendations tell “How it could have been prevented” For purposes of this presentation we will take a closer look at only Systems and Equipment recommendations.

  42. Personal/Private Accidents:A closer look at the top “Systems and Equipment” intervention recommendations • Post Incident Survivability • Crash resistant fuel systems • Install Wire Strike Protection System • Improve helicopter specific ELT practices/standards • Situational Awareness Enhancers • Install proximity detection system • Wire detection system for low altitude operations • Cockpit Indication/Warning • Automate carburetor anti-ice function or early warning alert • Fuel system status

  43. The first recorded incident of a pilot choosing to ignore statistical data at the risk of his crew and passengers happened a long time ago…

  44. …in a galaxy far, far away. But sir, the possibility of successfully navigating an asteroid field is approximately 3,720 to 1!! Never tell me the odds!!

  45. What do we know about Instructional/Training Accidents? • Second highest number of accidents of any industry sector studied by the IHST’s review of U.S. helicopter accidents • 92 accidents in Instructional Training • 17.6% of the 523 total accidents studied

  46. Instructional/Training Accidents:Occurrence Categories tell “What happened?”

  47. Instructional/Training Accidents:More about “Loss of Control” • Loss of control occurrences were further divided into more specific sub-areas. • For Instructional/Training, the Loss of Control sub-areas most frequently cited were (in descending order): • Performance Management • Interference with Controls • Dynamic Rollover

  48. Instructional/Training Accidents:Problem Statements tell “Why did it happen?”

  49. Instructional/Training Accidents:Problem Statements tell “Why did it happen?” For purposes of this presentation we will take a closer look at just a couple of the problem statements.

  50. Instructional/Training Accidents:Further details for selected problem statements • “Pilot Judgment & Actions” problems most frequently occurred in the following sub-areas: • Procedure Implementation, Landing Procedures, Crew Resource Management, Decision Making • “Pilot Situational Awareness” problems most frequently occurred in the following sub-areas: • Awareness of External Environment