USA Today "Unfit for Flight"

There has been a lot of discussion in the aviation community about this 3 Part Expose' Series in      USA Today - Most of our aviation community agree that - we should strive to make aviation safer.  Most of us on this side of the fence,  also agree that the condemnation of manufacturers in this industry was - just a little slanted.  I happen to know several of the players and the other side to many of the examples and lawsuits presented.   It is not as cut and dried as the articles suggest.

Mr Bertorelli - who I respect as an aviation journalist and pilot - made several good points in his Blog  As most people are aware - Aviation is the "most regulated business in the world".  In this industry we laugh at drug and medical device companies - because they have it easy.    In this environment how could an outside news agency find fault with our industry.    Given the economics of this particular business,  it isn't profitable to do a bad job.   Paul stated all of this in his blog very clearly:

There’s wide agreement that over regulation has had a hand in getting us into this mess, so further regulation — of manufacturers or more stringent training requirements —won’t get us out of it.   The entire community just doesn’t have the stomach for it. And neither do I, frankly.  Not to mention the utter lack of any economic engine to drive it all.

I was however struck today with one of Mr. Bertorelli's responses to this safety issue - and because an element of the rebuttal involved a segment of the aviation industry that I have become quite familiar.

At this point, we work on fuel level systems in aviation and most recently the automotive industry.

We have a unique but very narrow viewpoint.

GA Safety: All Heat, No Light

Excerpt from Paul Bertorelli's Blog 

As a refreshing change, the USA Today report almost tried to cast pilots as steely eyed but hapless victims of shoddy manufacturing and outdated aircraft designs. Were it only so. None of us have to look in the mirror to know that although out-of-the-blue mechanicals do cause accidents, preventing every one of that category wouldn’t change the accident rate much.

Even in some of the egregiously poorly prepared reports, the pilot obviously did something stupid—like flying into bad weather, overloading the airplane or, a perennial favorite, running the tanks dry because the fuel gauges aren’t accurate.  

That last item is a cultural thing in which automotive knowledge contaminates aviation thinking. It’s like that GEICO commercial; everybody knows the gauges aren’t accurate and we have means to work around this deficiency. 

Using a crash as a means of highlighting it seems somehow unsporting. Yeah, the stupid gauges should work, but no, they don’t.  So buy a totalizer or learn to use a watch.
But unless you, as the owner or pilot, take personal responsibility, your 35-year-old Cessna 172 is not going to be fitted with more accurate fuel gauges. 

-------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately neither the NTSB or FAA equate "Bad Fuel Gauges" to Fuel Exhaustion,  but it is interesting that Paul does state this in his blog.  It is quite common to report to the NTSB or FAA after an accident that the fuel gauges are not accurate in your damaged aircraft.  There is no consequence to those statements.  If your flight plan did not indicate average fuel burn - look out.  

I also agree that fuel level is a cultural thing in aviation - I am not familiar with the GIECO reference Paul equates - but fuel level in automotive applications is barely adequate, the website tankonempty.com illustrates this very well.  The issue in aviation, is that for most small aircraft, the fuel level system was taken from a ground vehicle system, think automotive, tractor, truck - This system, was barely adequate for an automotive application as illustrated by the website above  - and this system really struggles with fuel quantities that are 3 times larger, and the fuel and vehicle movement that occurs in aviation.

When we talk to people outside aviation - and we state things like Paul's statement "Yeah the stupid gauges should work, but no, they don't"     - they look at first puzzled and then to a each non aviation person we have stated this quizzes us back "Don't small aircraft run out of fuel"  Yes they do. 
   The National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration - NHTSA in a recent automotive recall for bad automotive fuel fuel gauges on Chevrolet Trucks stated that the there was an obvious safety issue with having bad fuel gauges  - specifically from the recall announcement:

"If a customer runs out of fuel without any warning from the fuel gauge, it will cause the vehicle to stall and increase the risk of a crash, the company said."

In aviation, as Paul Bertorelli stated for fuel level  - "we have work arounds". 

-------------------------------------------

As I am focussed on a small aspect of the aviation safety issue - and this is seemingly the common aviation response to a significant issue. 

Because from where I am sitting -  maybe the pilot of the 35 year old Cessna 172 should at the least have the fuel gauges checked and calibrated at annual. 

If the gauges are too far gone - he should have the maintenance facility send in a Service Difficulty Report to the FAA - let the Feds know we have an issue out here in the field.   Let's quit making excuses or work arounds for equipment that should and by law be required to function correctly. 

I think we as a community should start questioning these common assertions and take off the cultural blinders.  

-------------  

I think we all want to make aviation safer - including USA Today.