A number of years ago I was looking at a Navy accident cause analysis from the mid-1950's that concluded 70% of the then current accidents could have been prevented by different pilot actions, i.e. caused by the nut behind the stick. My examination of various safety studies since then has shown that the 70% pilot preventable accidents factor has remained fairly constant throughout the years and across a broad spectrum of flying activity, not just Naval aviation. Since pilot factors are the largest cause of accidents, it would appear that this is also the area that deserves the greatest emphasis in prevention and mitigation.
Mitigation? you ask. Yes, decreasing the severity of the consequences of "potential accidents." To err is to be human. If you have an accident, heaven forbid, and you walk away from it and have to rebuild your machine, it is a far better outcome than having your plane become your funeral pyre. If you are flying formation with an inexperienced pilot and he makes a mistake that embarrasses both of you, the outcome is better if you both have an optional handle to pull to activate a BRS type parachute system installed in your aircraft. If you lose directional control and turn over in a ditch, it is better if there is structure to prevent your head from being pushed into your chest, or perhaps being bent the other way.
Some time ago, we had a discussion regarding survivability and structural cockpit strength.
Survivability lesson from the past If you build it like they did then, you can expect to get similar results.
If we are building an aircraft, we have opportunities to change things. With all the knowledge and technology to improve survivability that has been developed since WWI, it is almost criminal not to make use of it. You don't have to destroy the weight budget to do this. Just analyze the hazards and come up with effective means of mitigating them.
What do you think?
Sid