Originally Posted by
init4fun
Ok , that was one point I was wondering about . As it stands now , if you turn your plane into a smoking hole in the ground with no injuries and no property damage , you don't have to report it . But isn't that the greatest majority of incidents by far , the smashed plane with no people or property damage ? And also , once it rises to the level of hurt people or damaged property the insurance claims filed for the payment of such incidents already constitute one form of report , why not just condense the data from the insurance claims to track possible trends ? Anyway yes I agree with you that an incident resulting in severe personal injury or extensive property damage should be of course examined to see if any future operational changes may be needed , like spectators moved a bit further away or that sort of thing . This month in M.A.'s safety article (page 79) it's mentioned that propbite is the most common injury , maybe the insurance company(s) that are paying out the Dr.'s bills VIA insurance claims are keeping score of what causes the most injuries ?
I argue that if a plane crashes into people, even if there isn't an injury, those should be reported. Why? It wouldn't take much to change that into an injury. What if it's a small kid that gets hit instead of an adult? What if it hits someone in the eye next time? Slightly bigger aircraft? Slightly faster? Different angle? Small change in conditions take a non-event to a newsworthy injury. How often our planes are crashing into people would seem to be something of interest - since in theory it should NEVER happen.