Are pilots risk takers?
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is very interesting - albeit for the families of those killed on Czar 52, tragic.
Tex Johnston - first pilot of XB-52 incidentally - barrel rolls the 707 and we call him a hero.
You can find the video on this page:
707 Roll
Bud Holland - not so lucky and we call him a zero.
Both pilots demonstrate (perhaps because of their priveleged positions - test pilot with access to specific data etc etc) that the cleared flight envelope of the aircraft is often far smaller than the true envelope.
Notwithstanding this, many of Holland's routines seem to be made more spectacular because of energy-trades rather than exploitation of the airframes aerodynamics. Thats a simple equation.
I have every respect for the legislated limits of the airframe I fly and I do not exceed them but they're artificial. I know that from mucking around in the sim (OK OK, the aero model in the sim is probably of reduced fidelity...).
But the closer you approach the edge of the envelope, the finer the line between hero and zero.
After his exploits and subsequent reprimand, to my knowledge Tex never repeated the stunt. Holland - au contraire.
Topic for thesis: Holland was a good pilot.
Discuss.
Tex Johnston - first pilot of XB-52 incidentally - barrel rolls the 707 and we call him a hero.
You can find the video on this page:
707 Roll
Bud Holland - not so lucky and we call him a zero.
Both pilots demonstrate (perhaps because of their priveleged positions - test pilot with access to specific data etc etc) that the cleared flight envelope of the aircraft is often far smaller than the true envelope.
Notwithstanding this, many of Holland's routines seem to be made more spectacular because of energy-trades rather than exploitation of the airframes aerodynamics. Thats a simple equation.
I have every respect for the legislated limits of the airframe I fly and I do not exceed them but they're artificial. I know that from mucking around in the sim (OK OK, the aero model in the sim is probably of reduced fidelity...).
But the closer you approach the edge of the envelope, the finer the line between hero and zero.
After his exploits and subsequent reprimand, to my knowledge Tex never repeated the stunt. Holland - au contraire.
Topic for thesis: Holland was a good pilot.
Discuss.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The Far Side
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many of us have repressed that "wonder if this thing would do a nice barrel" urge?
My last sim session before retirement was running a bit ahead of sked, and I both barrelled and looped the aircraft. (B737-800)
Bit ragged on the inverted part of the barrel, and the speed was down to about 100kts at the top of the loop, but we all came out the sim with a grin from ear to ear.
My last sim session before retirement was running a bit ahead of sked, and I both barrelled and looped the aircraft. (B737-800)
Bit ragged on the inverted part of the barrel, and the speed was down to about 100kts at the top of the loop, but we all came out the sim with a grin from ear to ear.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Everywhere
Posts: 783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Topic for thesis: Holland was a good pilot.
However, being a good pilot involves more than that.
He took chances and, as Leftit2L8 says, eventually gravity won.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,843
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying IS inherently dangerous, it abounds with numerous risks.
That's why we need pilots, to identify and avoid the dangerous and risky situations. And, if all else fails, the same pilots are needed to evaluate the least risky options, and execute them.
Flying is inherently dangerous, but statistically very very safe, because pilots are risk AVOIDERS.
Regards,
Old Smokey
That's why we need pilots, to identify and avoid the dangerous and risky situations. And, if all else fails, the same pilots are needed to evaluate the least risky options, and execute them.
Flying is inherently dangerous, but statistically very very safe, because pilots are risk AVOIDERS.
Regards,
Old Smokey
Flaps Forty-thanks for including that description of the senseless B-52 crash. I recently flew with an FO who KNEW the pilot who was in the right seat.
Ironically, (experienced, i.e. 5,000 hours+) airline pilots who kill themselves in a plane, unless in combat with the ANG/ Air Force Reserve etc (i.e. the Air Force RESERVE crew on the AC-130 Spectre which was shot down by a small SAM over Kuwait in '91, after the prohibited time at sunrise...), are killed in small, privately-owned or rented planes. Many of them die doing normal flying maneuvers.
Going from high-performance to low-performance allows you to set many traps for yourself. One gentleman whom I had flown, died with his family
in a single-engine Piper, in the Florida panhandle; heavily wooded areas are common there. The pilot had flown Navy F-4s and later F-27s and DC-9s for many years. Some water in a fuel tank was suspected, I believe. This might not have been the final NTSB conclusion.
Another guy was an F-16 pilot who rented a C-172. He was the top pilot in Class 80-02 at "Flat, Dusty AFB" (I'd rather be an Okie...). According to a pprune e-mail, George and three others were looking for hunting land over Montana and either the fuel mixture control was wrong, or something else caused a loss of engine power. Density altitude might have also been a factor.
Also in the early 90s, a pair of brand-new (but probably very inexperienced) Air Force pilots were given desk jobs for a few years, along with many others, at that time and were allowed to fly small planes in the Aero Club as they waited for openings in the operational aircraft squadrons. The two got into a "box" canyon with not much room to turn around. Even in a light twin recip, these planes almost no performance margins, and might not climb after an engine failure even with the gear up and correct prop feathered on the (correct) failed engine. My suggestion is to not fly any family members around unless one has some solid recent experience in the same aircraft type in the same weather, following more than minumum instruction. One's ego can be the biggest risk, other than carelessness or impatience.
I've watched (on former Discovery Wings Channel) actors Dennis Quaid and Michael Dorn (the "Klingon" on Startrek N. G.?) fly with experienced pilots in their private aircraft, a Citation and a Saberliner. These guys seem to keep their egos aways from the planes, even with cameras on them. They are smart.
Dennis started with slower recip planes. The owner/founder of Atlas Airlines died with a passenger in his Czech-built Let-39 trainer jet near Denver.
In higher-profile transport aviation, involving passengers, standardized procedures create limitations. In your own plane, there are no clear standards. Only self-discipline can protect us or our families in private aircraft, never mind training and experience. Even Mr. Walton (the 11th wealthiest man) had a good bit of experience in ultra-light aircraft.
Ironically, (experienced, i.e. 5,000 hours+) airline pilots who kill themselves in a plane, unless in combat with the ANG/ Air Force Reserve etc (i.e. the Air Force RESERVE crew on the AC-130 Spectre which was shot down by a small SAM over Kuwait in '91, after the prohibited time at sunrise...), are killed in small, privately-owned or rented planes. Many of them die doing normal flying maneuvers.
Going from high-performance to low-performance allows you to set many traps for yourself. One gentleman whom I had flown, died with his family
in a single-engine Piper, in the Florida panhandle; heavily wooded areas are common there. The pilot had flown Navy F-4s and later F-27s and DC-9s for many years. Some water in a fuel tank was suspected, I believe. This might not have been the final NTSB conclusion.Another guy was an F-16 pilot who rented a C-172. He was the top pilot in Class 80-02 at "Flat, Dusty AFB" (I'd rather be an Okie...). According to a pprune e-mail, George and three others were looking for hunting land over Montana and either the fuel mixture control was wrong, or something else caused a loss of engine power. Density altitude might have also been a factor.
Also in the early 90s, a pair of brand-new (but probably very inexperienced) Air Force pilots were given desk jobs for a few years, along with many others, at that time and were allowed to fly small planes in the Aero Club as they waited for openings in the operational aircraft squadrons. The two got into a "box" canyon with not much room to turn around. Even in a light twin recip, these planes almost no performance margins, and might not climb after an engine failure even with the gear up and correct prop feathered on the (correct) failed engine. My suggestion is to not fly any family members around unless one has some solid recent experience in the same aircraft type in the same weather, following more than minumum instruction. One's ego can be the biggest risk, other than carelessness or impatience.
I've watched (on former Discovery Wings Channel) actors Dennis Quaid and Michael Dorn (the "Klingon" on Startrek N. G.?) fly with experienced pilots in their private aircraft, a Citation and a Saberliner. These guys seem to keep their egos aways from the planes, even with cameras on them. They are smart.
Dennis started with slower recip planes. The owner/founder of Atlas Airlines died with a passenger in his Czech-built Let-39 trainer jet near Denver.
In higher-profile transport aviation, involving passengers, standardized procedures create limitations. In your own plane, there are no clear standards. Only self-discipline can protect us or our families in private aircraft, never mind training and experience. Even Mr. Walton (the 11th wealthiest man) had a good bit of experience in ultra-light aircraft.
Last edited by Ignition Override; 10th Jul 2005 at 02:28.
Mach 3
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Stratosphere
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignition Override
Which IMHO goes to show that to a great extent it is the flightdeck environment that now mitigates against the risk involved. With IRS, EHSI, EGPWS, GPS, EVS, HUD on a "high-performance" aircraft, it is arguably "low-performance" aircraft that are harder to fly. Multi-pilot ops help.
I personally don't feel I do much risk assessment flying a big commercial jet. Most of that, rightly so, has been taken out of the job by SOP's and an information stream that is highly cross-correlated and very accurate.
Its fairly infrequently I've not got a RCS and am out of controlled airspace/in the open FIR and haven't got access to a good DME-DME fix.
Other things besides "stick and rudder" skills?
I suppose its a harking back to the old days, but my own yardstick by which I judge my skills as a pilot include very little else. To my detriment perhaps!
As a commercial airline pilot with all the attendent demands this job makes on me as a systems/personnel manager, I am compelled to include other important skills in the assessment of my ability.
But only with an element of regret!
Which IMHO goes to show that to a great extent it is the flightdeck environment that now mitigates against the risk involved. With IRS, EHSI, EGPWS, GPS, EVS, HUD on a "high-performance" aircraft, it is arguably "low-performance" aircraft that are harder to fly. Multi-pilot ops help.
I personally don't feel I do much risk assessment flying a big commercial jet. Most of that, rightly so, has been taken out of the job by SOP's and an information stream that is highly cross-correlated and very accurate.
Its fairly infrequently I've not got a RCS and am out of controlled airspace/in the open FIR and haven't got access to a good DME-DME fix.
Other things besides "stick and rudder" skills?
I suppose its a harking back to the old days, but my own yardstick by which I judge my skills as a pilot include very little else. To my detriment perhaps!
As a commercial airline pilot with all the attendent demands this job makes on me as a systems/personnel manager, I am compelled to include other important skills in the assessment of my ability.
But only with an element of regret!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In my seat
Posts: 822
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zerozero,
Just to be correct,
The definition of "Safety" is:
A CONDITION of RELATIVE absence of danger.
risk has nothing to do with the definition per se, it is a result.
Now, what does this mean?
Well, it means that "safety" is never a guarantee. it is conditional and subject to quick changes. It is also a relative to the situation.
Safety while doing aerobatics is different then going for a walk in the park (during daylight then
)
Out of this definition, we can conclude that because safety is a condition, we will always have a risk factor involved, if only the risk that the conditions will change.
Is total safety recommendable? No, because it is not human.
So, how to minimize the "risk"... Well, as we learned from our definition, the only way to do this is to try and make a current condition as stable as possible. Can we eliminate risk? No, as this would eliminate the condition, and that is indeed the vital part of our definition.
I could go on and on here, this small bit comes from a safety course that I've written and teached at Maritime Academy many moons ago. I do hope however that it might shed SOME light on the subject.
I am still hoping that one day, Safety will become a JAA subject on the theory courses, just like in the maritime training.
Despegue
First Officer B737
Maritime Safety Officer
Just to be correct,
The definition of "Safety" is:
A CONDITION of RELATIVE absence of danger.
risk has nothing to do with the definition per se, it is a result.
Now, what does this mean?
Well, it means that "safety" is never a guarantee. it is conditional and subject to quick changes. It is also a relative to the situation.
Safety while doing aerobatics is different then going for a walk in the park (during daylight then
)Out of this definition, we can conclude that because safety is a condition, we will always have a risk factor involved, if only the risk that the conditions will change.
Is total safety recommendable? No, because it is not human.
So, how to minimize the "risk"... Well, as we learned from our definition, the only way to do this is to try and make a current condition as stable as possible. Can we eliminate risk? No, as this would eliminate the condition, and that is indeed the vital part of our definition.
I could go on and on here, this small bit comes from a safety course that I've written and teached at Maritime Academy many moons ago. I do hope however that it might shed SOME light on the subject.
I am still hoping that one day, Safety will become a JAA subject on the theory courses, just like in the maritime training.
Despegue
First Officer B737
Maritime Safety Officer
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Zanzi's Bar
Age: 60
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
18-W & Turbine
U guys nailed it.
I love to dodge in/out of traffic on my bike... I love to test myself n yacht with the elements... I go occasionally for a one-night-stand just for the thrill of it.
Making our pax feel like spending the rest of their lives flying is f**king boring and a killer.
I love to dodge in/out of traffic on my bike... I love to test myself n yacht with the elements... I go occasionally for a one-night-stand just for the thrill of it.
Making our pax feel like spending the rest of their lives flying is f**king boring and a killer.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: South Africa
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flying magazine a few years ago ran a column describing flying as an excercise in "risk management", I believe by J Mac McLellan. What an excellent description. of course anyone could argue that walking out of your front door these days constitutes a risk, so flying obviously holds some risk. No risk equals no flying, so it is obvious that some acknowledgement of risk must be necessary to safely plan a flight. It is how you manage that risk that really counts.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Under the clag EGKA
Posts: 1,028
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You all take many more risks in your cars and most of you increase them. Of course you say to us and yourselves that it is all very "Calculated" and that your skill takes all the risk out of it. If I was to fly the way most of you drive you would ask to get my licence pulled.
One of the other theories is that we all need a certain level of risk in our lives (depending on the individual). If you don't get it at work you get it at play.
Compare modern cars with older ones. The trend has been safer and safer, with airbags, crash cells, crumple zones, electronic stability, etc. but people respond to that by driving faster until they reach their own personal quota of 'danger'. There's a famous quote about reducing traffic accidents by replacing the airbag on the steering wheel by a sharp metal spike!
Theory is, we evolved to cope with a certain arousal level and if it isn't there we get stressed by boredom. Then take stupid risks to try and even it out.
I think that's a fair explanation but I don't think it holds true at the edges, i.e. soldiers in a really dangerous war situation often engage in lethal play. Pilots in the same sort of situation do likewise. (WWII bomber and fighter crews, to name some.)
I flew a 777 across the Atlantic the other day and nothing much happened until the last 10 minutes (as usual). I got the 9hrs of boredom out of my soul by jumping for the first time (being pushed, actually!) out of a perfectly serviceable aircraft at 13,500'. A minute of hurtling earthwards before pulling the release... Great antidote and I think everyone should do it once.
Compare modern cars with older ones. The trend has been safer and safer, with airbags, crash cells, crumple zones, electronic stability, etc. but people respond to that by driving faster until they reach their own personal quota of 'danger'. There's a famous quote about reducing traffic accidents by replacing the airbag on the steering wheel by a sharp metal spike!
Theory is, we evolved to cope with a certain arousal level and if it isn't there we get stressed by boredom. Then take stupid risks to try and even it out.
I think that's a fair explanation but I don't think it holds true at the edges, i.e. soldiers in a really dangerous war situation often engage in lethal play. Pilots in the same sort of situation do likewise. (WWII bomber and fighter crews, to name some.)
I flew a 777 across the Atlantic the other day and nothing much happened until the last 10 minutes (as usual). I got the 9hrs of boredom out of my soul by jumping for the first time (being pushed, actually!) out of a perfectly serviceable aircraft at 13,500'. A minute of hurtling earthwards before pulling the release... Great antidote and I think everyone should do it once.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Risk takers
Different types of risk. I prefer a skydiver, scuba, martial arts guy in the cockpit, shows some skills, managing risk, strategy ect.
As a skydiver, martial artist, scuba guy myself I know that some skydivers, sh$t pack thier rigs, Scuba guys that don't use the buddy system, and martial arts guys without an ounce of sense.
But the idiots that go to Vegas and blow thier paycheck, drive or fly drunk, basicaly gamble, are the ones that worry me.
I feel if a pilot sits up front, he's taking responsibility for everyone in the back, ergo, he manages the risk inherent with that flights. That said, if there is a risk of ice, he manages that, a risk of engine failure after V1 then alt, temp, weight,ect should be managed.
Just about every scenario that can bring down an aircraft has been thought out, worked out, came up with a solution, so the pilot(s) should get ahead of those.
No such thing as act of god in flying, everything can be dealt with. Any pilot who feels he just along for the ride waiting for somethign to happen that will be beyond his control should find a different job.
It's all about managing the risk, getting ahead of a potential problem, with the rotten pilots too lazy, too stupid, too scared of making waves to do that.
As a skydiver, martial artist, scuba guy myself I know that some skydivers, sh$t pack thier rigs, Scuba guys that don't use the buddy system, and martial arts guys without an ounce of sense.
But the idiots that go to Vegas and blow thier paycheck, drive or fly drunk, basicaly gamble, are the ones that worry me.
I feel if a pilot sits up front, he's taking responsibility for everyone in the back, ergo, he manages the risk inherent with that flights. That said, if there is a risk of ice, he manages that, a risk of engine failure after V1 then alt, temp, weight,ect should be managed.
Just about every scenario that can bring down an aircraft has been thought out, worked out, came up with a solution, so the pilot(s) should get ahead of those.
No such thing as act of god in flying, everything can be dealt with. Any pilot who feels he just along for the ride waiting for somethign to happen that will be beyond his control should find a different job.
It's all about managing the risk, getting ahead of a potential problem, with the rotten pilots too lazy, too stupid, too scared of making waves to do that.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think SSG has come closest here; the problem is that no-one has defined "risk" in this context. There are two types:
1. Where the outcome depends on a roll of the dice - factors outside our control. Pilots most definitely shouldn't be this sort of risk taker
2. Risks where the outcome depends on factors within our control. This sort of risk is central to everyday life and especially flying - If I fly this approach and landing correctly we will all make it safely to our destination.
A pilot has to take this sort of risk all the time, and to be good at it it probably helps if you enjoy the challenge. I think this expplains why a lot of pilots enjoy driving motorbikes, fast cars, skydiving etc. I know I do.
1. Where the outcome depends on a roll of the dice - factors outside our control. Pilots most definitely shouldn't be this sort of risk taker
2. Risks where the outcome depends on factors within our control. This sort of risk is central to everyday life and especially flying - If I fly this approach and landing correctly we will all make it safely to our destination.
A pilot has to take this sort of risk all the time, and to be good at it it probably helps if you enjoy the challenge. I think this expplains why a lot of pilots enjoy driving motorbikes, fast cars, skydiving etc. I know I do.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,047
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I always told my students that a safe flight was a boring flight.
I think this is why so many PPL's leave aviation after a few years.
We teach how to handle the risks involved in aviation, through training and regulation to the point that the element of risk seems to have dissapeared, to catch out the unwary.
I used to look forward to the ride to and from the flying club on my motorcycle, more than actually flying, that would get the adrenalin going..... and trying to get a piper tomahawk to recover from a spin at second attempt!
I think this is why so many PPL's leave aviation after a few years.
We teach how to handle the risks involved in aviation, through training and regulation to the point that the element of risk seems to have dissapeared, to catch out the unwary.
I used to look forward to the ride to and from the flying club on my motorcycle, more than actually flying, that would get the adrenalin going..... and trying to get a piper tomahawk to recover from a spin at second attempt!
