Safer Flying?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But for real 'certainity' do not take notice of the type of posts such as the last one, they occupy space but do not say anything useful.
I hope so because some of ours are training to be pilots!
It is my personal feelings that comparing the two different jobs, flying versus fixing are quite different and my job satisfaction was far more satisfying with regard to fixing versus flying.
A well trained monkey can fly an airplane but can a monkey fix one?
A well trained monkey can fly an airplane but can a monkey fix one?
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tisk, tisk did I touch a sore spot llanfairpg?
AAhhh well you will recover.
The reference to teaching a monkey to fly was tongue in cheek, but I stand by the position that it is more difficult to be a good mechanic than a good driver.
And we don't need to prance around all dolled up in gold braid so people will notice who we are?
AAhhh well you will recover.
The reference to teaching a monkey to fly was tongue in cheek, but I stand by the position that it is more difficult to be a good mechanic than a good driver.
And we don't need to prance around all dolled up in gold braid so people will notice who we are?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have you noticed we don't need to prance around all dolled up in gold braid so people will notice who we are?
but I stand by the position that it is more difficult to be a good mechanic than a good driver.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, there he goes again. 
A little more meat on the bone, perhaps.
This is utter, complete, rubbish and nonsense. I sincerely hope it was posted here as a joke, albeit with tongue inappropriately in cheek, because if that's what you genuinely think, then you're so far from the mark that you probably don't even know which bit is the bow and which the arrow. Have you considered that the relatives and friends of those who have died in accidents routinely join these forums? How will they view your intemperate and misguided remark? 
Regarding your remark about road safety, perhaps you'll take it from me, as one who has studied these statistics in some detail and is both an aviation professional and a rather more than usually competent (highly-trained) driver, that again, you're talking out of your hat.
A little more meat on the bone, perhaps.
aircraft only bite fools
Regarding your remark about road safety, perhaps you'll take it from me, as one who has studied these statistics in some detail and is both an aviation professional and a rather more than usually competent (highly-trained) driver, that again, you're talking out of your hat.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No I am repeating a much used phrase in UK flying that together with 'no bold pilots' has been around since Pontious was a pilot.
Do I believe it? Yes, because in my experiience of flying most flying accidents are the result of pilot error and foolish decisions.
I see the phrase as a useful teaching aid but I can see how it may offend some, we all prefer praise rather than criticism, dont we!
Basically it means if you do foolish things in an aircraft you may injure yourself, sounds to me like a gospel worth spreading!
Do I believe it? Yes, because in my experiience of flying most flying accidents are the result of pilot error and foolish decisions.
I see the phrase as a useful teaching aid but I can see how it may offend some, we all prefer praise rather than criticism, dont we!
Basically it means if you do foolish things in an aircraft you may injure yourself, sounds to me like a gospel worth spreading!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To the original poster, it's such a shame that a genuine, if somewhat elementary request, has generated the rubbish that's followed...
To be more specific than I was formerly, if you want to avoid death or injury in a light aircraft, don't get into one. If you do get into one, understand the level of risk involved. As the UK regulator won't help you understand this (they wanted to, but commercial pressure and poor stats prevented it), you might want to look elsewhere (eg 'down under') try to get a grip on it.
By the way, llan-fool, 'pilot error' is extremely rare. Human error amongst aviators is many thousand times more common.
To be more specific than I was formerly, if you want to avoid death or injury in a light aircraft, don't get into one. If you do get into one, understand the level of risk involved. As the UK regulator won't help you understand this (they wanted to, but commercial pressure and poor stats prevented it), you might want to look elsewhere (eg 'down under') try to get a grip on it.
By the way, llan-fool, 'pilot error' is extremely rare. Human error amongst aviators is many thousand times more common.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The statement is foolish.
By the way, llan-fool, 'pilot error' is extremely rare. Human error amongst aviators is many thousand times more common.
“A 40 percent decline in pilot error-related mishaps is very impressive. Pilot error has long been considered the most prominent contributor to aviation crashes,” said the study’s lead author,Susan P. Baker, MPH, a professor with the Johns Hopkins Center for Injury Research and Policy and the Bloomberg School’s Department of Health Policy and Management.
Last edited by llanfairpg; 28th Dec 2007 at 22:22.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Matt
This is from the CAA Safety Sense leaflet- Airmanship
a. There is an average of one fatal GA accident a month in the United Kingdom.
b. The main fatal accident causes during the last 20 years have been:
• continued flight into bad weather, including impact with high ground and loss of control in IMC
• loss of control in visual met conditions, including stall/spin
• low aerobatics and low flying
• mid-air collisions (sometimes each pilot knew the other was there)
• runway too short for the aircraft’s weight or performance
• colliding with obstacles, perhaps being too low on the approach
c. A high proportion of stall/spin fatal accident pilots were not in good flying practice.
d. Loss of control in flight is the major cause of fatal accidents in gliding and microlighting.
e. The main causes of twin-engined aircraft fatal accidents were:
• pressing on into bad weather (often to aerodromes with limited navigational facilities) resulting in controlled flight into terrain or loss of control IMC
• loss of control VFR particularly following engine failure
Cant see too many incidents above which do not fall into the pilot error or foolish behaviour category.
In the Safety Sense leaflet ITS YOUR DECISION it says;
A CAA study examined 166 fatal accidents to UK light aircraft. That review was published as CAP 667 ‘Review of General Aviation Fatal Accidents 1985 – 1994’, and this highlights some of the points made. Most accidents are the result of the pilot’s actions. This includes their skill level and, most important of all, the decisions that they make. This leaflet details some of the factors that can affect how the pilot’s decisions do – or don’t – keep the aircraft in one piece and the occupants safe.
During your PPL training you should have been introduced to these leaflets,
You will find them all listed at
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...e=sercat&id=21
useful for self-appointed experts too.
This is from the CAA Safety Sense leaflet- Airmanship
a. There is an average of one fatal GA accident a month in the United Kingdom.
b. The main fatal accident causes during the last 20 years have been:
• continued flight into bad weather, including impact with high ground and loss of control in IMC
• loss of control in visual met conditions, including stall/spin
• low aerobatics and low flying
• mid-air collisions (sometimes each pilot knew the other was there)
• runway too short for the aircraft’s weight or performance
• colliding with obstacles, perhaps being too low on the approach
c. A high proportion of stall/spin fatal accident pilots were not in good flying practice.
d. Loss of control in flight is the major cause of fatal accidents in gliding and microlighting.
e. The main causes of twin-engined aircraft fatal accidents were:
• pressing on into bad weather (often to aerodromes with limited navigational facilities) resulting in controlled flight into terrain or loss of control IMC
• loss of control VFR particularly following engine failure
Cant see too many incidents above which do not fall into the pilot error or foolish behaviour category.
In the Safety Sense leaflet ITS YOUR DECISION it says;
A CAA study examined 166 fatal accidents to UK light aircraft. That review was published as CAP 667 ‘Review of General Aviation Fatal Accidents 1985 – 1994’, and this highlights some of the points made. Most accidents are the result of the pilot’s actions. This includes their skill level and, most important of all, the decisions that they make. This leaflet details some of the factors that can affect how the pilot’s decisions do – or don’t – keep the aircraft in one piece and the occupants safe.
During your PPL training you should have been introduced to these leaflets,
You will find them all listed at
http://www.caa.co.uk/application.asp...e=sercat&id=21
useful for self-appointed experts too.
Last edited by llanfairpg; 28th Dec 2007 at 23:25.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
llanfairpg has it occurred to you that some of us may also know something about flying and the issues around safety and good decision making?
33 years of professional flying may be a lot but you are not the only one who has that level of experience here, not all of us are private pilots.
33 years of professional flying may be a lot but you are not the only one who has that level of experience here, not all of us are private pilots.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: heathrow
Posts: 990
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
llanfairpg has it occurred to you that some of us may also know something about flying and the issues around safety and good decision making?
I can't be bothered reading through all this stuff
Last edited by llanfairpg; 28th Dec 2007 at 23:49.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's another difference between us Chuck.
True, I am smart enough to ask a simple question rather than re read pages of posts.
I am very sure 'some' of you do but when 'some' of you would rather make comments about gold bars, engineers and monkeys it is difficult to detect that knowledge.
My comments are directed at the propensity for far to many pilots to get a hero complex just because they can fly an airplane.....the gold bars are their status symbal....
Mechanics as a group do not suffer from that self love complex.
True, I am smart enough to ask a simple question rather than re read pages of posts.
I am very sure 'some' of you do but when 'some' of you would rather make comments about gold bars, engineers and monkeys it is difficult to detect that knowledge.
My comments are directed at the propensity for far to many pilots to get a hero complex just because they can fly an airplane.....the gold bars are their status symbal....
Mechanics as a group do not suffer from that self love complex.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: France
Posts: 481
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why did I mention the distnction between 'pilot error' and 'human error'? 
Pilot error is a term developed by the media and others (notably aircraft manufacturers) to enable straightforward blaming of individual pilots in the aftermath of acidents. We don't hear of 'surgeon error', 'judge error', or 'politician error', do we?
I am unwilling to let the phrase go unchallenged here, as it whitewashes the straightforward and predictable human frailties in all of us, whether pilots or not. I'm not going to cite the many papers on this topic, though good starting points would be Simon Bennett's 'Human error-by design', and the good work on modelling human error in the flight deck accomplished over recent years by Sid Dekker et al.
If you're a pilot who uses the phrase, you're doing a great iunjustice to your fellow aviators - but it sweems that's something that some people are unusually skilled at, doesn't it?
The SSLs do set out some worthwhile, if basic, material. But if you're happy to put all accident pilots down as 'fools', then you must have concluded that they all acted foolishly and knew that they were doing so. Crucially, they didn't; what they did made sense to them. It's unpacking that aspect of human behaviour which is key to human factors research in aviation safety, as is providing tools, both soft (such as interactive briefing) and hard (such as EGPWS), to interrupt this error path.
(By the way, as an 'expert' in my present job, I was appointed by a group of very highly experienced professionals, so there's nothing 'self-appointed' about my expertise).
Pilot error is a term developed by the media and others (notably aircraft manufacturers) to enable straightforward blaming of individual pilots in the aftermath of acidents. We don't hear of 'surgeon error', 'judge error', or 'politician error', do we?
I am unwilling to let the phrase go unchallenged here, as it whitewashes the straightforward and predictable human frailties in all of us, whether pilots or not. I'm not going to cite the many papers on this topic, though good starting points would be Simon Bennett's 'Human error-by design', and the good work on modelling human error in the flight deck accomplished over recent years by Sid Dekker et al.
If you're a pilot who uses the phrase, you're doing a great iunjustice to your fellow aviators - but it sweems that's something that some people are unusually skilled at, doesn't it?
The SSLs do set out some worthwhile, if basic, material. But if you're happy to put all accident pilots down as 'fools', then you must have concluded that they all acted foolishly and knew that they were doing so. Crucially, they didn't; what they did made sense to them. It's unpacking that aspect of human behaviour which is key to human factors research in aviation safety, as is providing tools, both soft (such as interactive briefing) and hard (such as EGPWS), to interrupt this error path.
(By the way, as an 'expert' in my present job, I was appointed by a group of very highly experienced professionals, so there's nothing 'self-appointed' about my expertise).
Last edited by frontlefthamster; 29th Dec 2007 at 08:38.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Llanfairpg
Pilot error is a misleading term, I don't care who you quote in support.
Human error is the correct term and it applies across a range of scenarios and disciplines.
Look at Reason's Swiss Cheese model, just as applicable in the oil industry or schools as it is in aviation.
Laterality affects bank clerks just as much as pilots, group think catches investment bankers as well as 727 flight decks.
Chuck
I laughed at your point about mechanics and pilot hero egos - unfortunately the UK CAA chooses to name the person in charge of any aerial apparatus the 'commander', so like it or not the PIC of a balloon or C150 in the UK is the commander, just as is the case with a 747.
Pilot error is a misleading term, I don't care who you quote in support.
Human error is the correct term and it applies across a range of scenarios and disciplines.
Look at Reason's Swiss Cheese model, just as applicable in the oil industry or schools as it is in aviation.
Laterality affects bank clerks just as much as pilots, group think catches investment bankers as well as 727 flight decks.
Chuck
I laughed at your point about mechanics and pilot hero egos - unfortunately the UK CAA chooses to name the person in charge of any aerial apparatus the 'commander', so like it or not the PIC of a balloon or C150 in the UK is the commander, just as is the case with a 747.
Yes, I'm quite experienced as well - but I'd prefer to do my best to make arguments that stand up on their own, regardless of who makes them.
Anyhow, this "Pilot Error" chestnut. The allocation of blame is deeply satisfying to the human ego (so long as it's not you being blamed), but it doesn't actually help much and can actually be quite misleading. In order to understand this, it's important to realise that (beyond a few middle-eastern idiots who seem to have it in for all forms of public transport) absolutely nobody sets out to cause an aircraft accident. No maintainer wants an aircraft they've looked after to suffer from an accident, no pilot wants an aircraft they are flying to suffer even the most minor of accident, no aircraft company wants anything more than a zero accident rate in the aeroplanes that they design, build and sell.
The problem is that aviation is incredibly complex - the design, build, maintenance and operation of a flying machine is so complex that nobody can understand fully all of the issues associated with any of those topics. We can only hope, any of us, to know enough - and be professional enough in our approach - to keep our particular neck of aviation safe.
And sometimes we fail, particularly because we all have finite time and resources to do what we're doing. I can think of several occasions where I had to examine an aeroplane which had suffered an incident or accident, and as a result imposed restrictions on that aircraft which had people demanding my head on a silver platter - because it was considered that the safety standards I was demanding was excessive. On the other hand I overran a runway once because of some less than sparkling judgment on my part, doing a lot of expensive damage and again having other people criticising me - for not applying sufficient care and attention.
What is significant here is that I, the person at the sharp end, had to make a decision - of how to achieve what SHOULD HAVE BEEN sufficient safety for APPROPRIATE resources. On at-least one occasion, I got it wrong! On other occasions absolutely nobody can prove whether I was right or wrong, only that there was no accident - but did I go over the top?
I'm rambling now, so let's get this back to bulletpoints:
- Nobody plans to cause an accident
- Nobody is as knowledgeable as they'd like to be
- Nobody has all the resources they'd like to be as safe as they'd like to be
- Aviation still has to happen
- Therefore, sometimes a wrong judgement is made, and either we impose excessive costs on ourselves or don't fly when we could have (bad), or we have an accident (very very bad).
- What we must then do is learn from that, and keep going - with the emphasis on no accidents, maximum flying, and minimum cost.
- We'll never get that absolutely right! When we don't, calling it "error" and allocating blame just gets in the way of stopping us getting it wrong a second time.
G
Anyhow, this "Pilot Error" chestnut. The allocation of blame is deeply satisfying to the human ego (so long as it's not you being blamed), but it doesn't actually help much and can actually be quite misleading. In order to understand this, it's important to realise that (beyond a few middle-eastern idiots who seem to have it in for all forms of public transport) absolutely nobody sets out to cause an aircraft accident. No maintainer wants an aircraft they've looked after to suffer from an accident, no pilot wants an aircraft they are flying to suffer even the most minor of accident, no aircraft company wants anything more than a zero accident rate in the aeroplanes that they design, build and sell.
The problem is that aviation is incredibly complex - the design, build, maintenance and operation of a flying machine is so complex that nobody can understand fully all of the issues associated with any of those topics. We can only hope, any of us, to know enough - and be professional enough in our approach - to keep our particular neck of aviation safe.
And sometimes we fail, particularly because we all have finite time and resources to do what we're doing. I can think of several occasions where I had to examine an aeroplane which had suffered an incident or accident, and as a result imposed restrictions on that aircraft which had people demanding my head on a silver platter - because it was considered that the safety standards I was demanding was excessive. On the other hand I overran a runway once because of some less than sparkling judgment on my part, doing a lot of expensive damage and again having other people criticising me - for not applying sufficient care and attention.
What is significant here is that I, the person at the sharp end, had to make a decision - of how to achieve what SHOULD HAVE BEEN sufficient safety for APPROPRIATE resources. On at-least one occasion, I got it wrong! On other occasions absolutely nobody can prove whether I was right or wrong, only that there was no accident - but did I go over the top?
I'm rambling now, so let's get this back to bulletpoints:
- Nobody plans to cause an accident
- Nobody is as knowledgeable as they'd like to be
- Nobody has all the resources they'd like to be as safe as they'd like to be
- Aviation still has to happen
- Therefore, sometimes a wrong judgement is made, and either we impose excessive costs on ourselves or don't fly when we could have (bad), or we have an accident (very very bad).
- What we must then do is learn from that, and keep going - with the emphasis on no accidents, maximum flying, and minimum cost.
- We'll never get that absolutely right! When we don't, calling it "error" and allocating blame just gets in the way of stopping us getting it wrong a second time.
G
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Right here
Age: 50
Posts: 420
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. "Pilot error" is a subset of "human error". There is no other distinction between the two terms.
2. "Pilot error" is indeed a mechanism for accidents, although it is not a cause.
3. Acknowledging error is not equivalent to assigning blame.
There's nothing wrong with the term "pilot error", as long as it's not listed in "probable cause" statements. Let's not misrepresent the pioneering and important work done by Reason and others; their work is about the nature of error, not about some PC humbug that forbids you to call things by their right names.
"aircraft only bite fools" vs. "aircraft only bite you if you do something foolish" -- equivalent if, but only if, only fools do foolish things (not the case)
2. "Pilot error" is indeed a mechanism for accidents, although it is not a cause.
3. Acknowledging error is not equivalent to assigning blame.
There's nothing wrong with the term "pilot error", as long as it's not listed in "probable cause" statements. Let's not misrepresent the pioneering and important work done by Reason and others; their work is about the nature of error, not about some PC humbug that forbids you to call things by their right names.
"aircraft only bite fools" vs. "aircraft only bite you if you do something foolish" -- equivalent if, but only if, only fools do foolish things (not the case)