Canadian Ultralight Accidents in Water (1990 to 2020)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Recently, an analysis of Canadian seaplane accidents terminating in water (1995–2019) was conducted, but ultralight water accidents were excluded due to differences from general aviation operations. This is the first literature that reports a series of ultralight accidents that occurred in water. The purpose of this paper is to identify the circumstances surrounding ultralight water accidents in Canada and to identify actions with the potential to improve survival.METHODS: Ultralight water accidents that were reported to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada between 1990 and 2020 were reviewed.RESULTS: Of the 1021 accidents that involved ultralights, 114 terminated in water, involving 155 occupants and 8 fatalities, yielding an occupant mortality rate of 5%. Of the accidents, 52% occurred during landing. There was less than 15 s warning in 78% of cases, which included five (63%) fatalities. The aircraft inverted in 40% of the accidents and, in 21%, it sank immediately. Loss of control was the terminal cause of the accident in 43% of cases, while adverse environmental conditions were reported in 38% of accidents. Little or no details were included on lifejacket or restraint harness use, status of emergency exits, water temperature, or occupant diving experience or underwater escape training.CONCLUSIONS: The mortality rate in ultralight aircraft water accidents was less than half that of helicopter and seaplane ditchings, but the lack of warning time was similar. All pilots and passengers need to have a well-practiced survival schema before strapping in and can benefit from underwater escape training.MacDonald C, Brooks C, McGowan R, Rosberg A. Canadian ultralight accidents in water (1990 to 2020). Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2023; 94(6):437–443.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".