Editorial: Safety Last: Lies and Cover-Ups Mask Roots of Small Plane Carnage

By Ed Downs

Does that title grab your attention? It should, as it is emblazoned across the USA Today web link to an article written by Thomas Frank (with 11 additional “contributors” listed at the end of the article), an investigative reporter for the print publication, USA Today. The print article was entitled, “Unfit for Flight,” but the web version seeks to grab readers’ attention with a title smacking of yellow journalism, (a type of journalism that presents little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines and photos to sell more newspapers) complete with a full-color photo of a crashed helicopter engulfed in flames. To be sure, the title, photo and article are designed to incite fear and mistrust of General Aviation by the reading and web-viewing public. Written in six short “installments,” accusations are made that General Aviation is an industry full of large companies that do not care about safety, an FAA that is obscuring the facts, longstanding deficiencies in design that go unchallenged and multiple lawsuits that prove just how dangerous General Aviation is. Now do we have your attention?

This writer had a number of visceral reactions upon reading the article. The first tendency was to attack each point made, followed by facts and statistics that were left out of this poorly researched article. But anger slowed to reason as I read the well thought out replies and comments of nearly every aviation alphabet group. Two primary questions came to this writer’s mind. First, what can one say to a non-pilot friend who reads this piece and then questions you about the safety of flying light aircraft? Second, what could the motive have been for printing such an article to begin with, given the huge generalizations taken and extrapolations from a questionably legitimate point to the conclusion that the General Aviation (meaning participants, manufacturers, services and even the FAA) considers “Safety Last,” using “Lies and Cover-Ups” to fool the public. Let’s take a look at both of these questions.

First, what do you say when that friend, who has read the USA Today report, asks, “is flying safe?” The honest answer is the manned flight is not inherently safe, but it can be managed in a way to make it safe.

Let’s face it; the human body is not really designed for rapid vertical or horizontal deceleration. Just try stepping off a curb when you do not see it, or attempt to walk through a clear door that was unexpectedly closed. The odds are good that you will suffer an injury. So with full knowledge of our fragility, we humanoids design a machine that will lift us thousands of feet into the air, fill it with flammable fluid, light the fluid on fire to produce energy and then hurl the entire contraption through the air at high speed. To be sure, we have created considerable risk. In fact, it is the same kind of risk we routinely accept when driving, boating, taking the subway or riding a horse.

That is what we humans do; we accept risk. But in aviation, we do more than just “accept” risk, we study it, learn ways to mitigate it, develop risk management skills and keep these skills sharp through currency requirements, practice, recurrent training, flight reviews and use of a multitude of government and private industry training programs. Be sure to mention tough pilot and aircraft certification standards, air-worthiness directives and that the FAA has a safety reporting system in place for mechanics to report problems or issues of concern. Most of all, let your concerned friend know that the ultimate responsibility for safety does not lie in just the ideal of “inherent safety” or the office of some government official or rule book. It is you, the responsible pilot, who actively causes safe operation of the aircraft. It is the view of this writer that Mr. Frank does not truly understand our commitment to personal responsibility, but choses to blame aviation accidents on “General Aviation.”

Flying is as safe as we pilots will allow it to be. FAA statistics tend to prove that we pilots are the focal point of safety, with nearly 80 percent of accidents related to pilot error of some form. That leaves about 20 percent of GA accidents involved in some form of mechanical issue, but even then, half of mechanical issues were known to the pilot prior to take off. Can GA safety be improved? Of course it can, just as soon as we pilots step up and do a better job of managing risk. It is not a “General Aviation problem,” it is a pilot opportunity.

Now for question number two, why did USA Today run this story? This writer’s personal experience with USA Today is usually associated with hotel stays, which due to my lecture schedules, are frequent. A current copy of USA Today is often slid under the door of my hotel room or almost always available in the hotel lobby. This writer has never purchased a copy. It is a distribution model quite similar to that used by In Flight USA.

Personally, I find the stories and reports to be light reading, often lacking any real punch or interest-grabbing issues. But then this writer must admit to reading habits that favor technical and trade publications with occasional in-depth coverage of business and political issues in the likes of the Wall Street Journal. Typically, a “block buster” of an investigative report deals with subjects that can affect millions, such as public health issues, political scandals, financial indiscretions or celebrity legal problems. Why pick on a niche market that is typically utilized by a small number of licensed individuals? GA does not “hold out for hire” as do the airlines, and owners and renters use GA aircraft for personal purposes.

With only about 600,000 GA pilots and maybe 225,000 GA airplanes, General Aviation offers little danger to the mass traveling public. The reporter, Thomas Frank, seems to be a qualified guy, one of 27 “news” reporters working for USA Today. An additional 57 reporters work in the money, sports, life, technical and travel departments. Mr. Frank has been with USA Today since 2004, with most of his reporting dealing with the TSA and homeland security. Mr. Frank appears to have paid his dues in the Middle East and wrote a detailed series on hurricane Katrina. It is notable that Mr. Frank was a finalist for a Pulitzer Prize in 2012.

This writer reviewed only a sampling of nearly 900 articles written by Mr. Frank and did not see sensationalism or personal ax grinding. Mr. Frank became an investigative reporter in 2010 and did cover some aviation events, such as the terrible accident at the Reno Air Races and the loss of the Air France Airliner over the Atlantic. These reports typically summarized NTSB investigative material.   

So, why does an experienced and respected investigative reporter produce a series so full of generalizations, cherry-picked issues and illogical conclusions, without quotes or comments from GA industry leaders? And why does Mr. Frank look to court judgments and financial settlements as proof of incorrect behavior? Anyone who has ever been involved in tort law (a civil wrong that can be redressed by awarding damages) knows that tort litigation is seldom about right and wrong, but actually a court-sanctioned business model aimed at acquiring the assets of another person or company.

Mr. Frank alludes to the “powerful special interest groups” that managed to implement a liability limit that “protects” aircraft and components placed into service more than 18 years ago from tort litigation. Mr. Frank fails to note that the 18-year moratorium was a part of the Aviation Revitalization Act of 1994 (S. 1458), passed by both houses of Congress and signed into law by then President Clinton. This act adversely affected the private income of hundreds of politicians who voted for it, causing one to wonder just how bad tort litigation had become for those inside the beltway to say, “enough is enough.” Mr. Frank should use his investigative skills to learn more about the need for the Revitalization Act and that tort litigation is, in fact, a major block to improved aviation safety.

Perhaps the reason for the “Safety Last” article lies with the editorial management of USA Today. USA Today’s editorial policies are quite detailed in terms of protecting sources but say little about fact checking or independent verification of editorial claims or accusations. Under the policy title of “Best Practices,” USA Today demands that reporters “Safeguard the readers’ trust” and “Tell the truth accurately and fairly.” But with no comments included from GA industry leaders, the “safeguard and fairly” part of their policy seems to be lacking. To be sure, this writer will never know the truth as to who made the final decision to run the “Safety Last” feature, but it certainly did what the yellow journalist of the past wanted to achieve. It has raised a ruckus, gotten a lot of comment and given the ad sales department the ability to brag about the controversial issues being covered by USA Today that will bring readers to both the publication and the website. Let’s hope this is not the case, but if it is, USA Today, shame on you!