Human factors - following on from the crash at YCTM.

I am trying to read it all and take it in.

There is a lot to read.

I started this thread because I too don't want to detract or distract the existing thread about the crash.

This is about some of the other things which were mentioned which I see as "interestingly mentioned" and how they apply - or don't - to how these kind of things happen.

Peer pressure is a big one and the first one which got me.

I have had a few times when it has been a real serious descision about flying or not.

Once I had to abort a flight after take off and turn back becaues of clouds just out of town.

Luckily a short time later the weather cleared and I got out, but still had to divert and spend a night away from home.

Another more recent one was at a flying and the weather came in a bit too soon and every one was (nearly) panicing.

Although I say "panicing" it was a somewhat comical one. Picture - if you will - a room FULL of pilots.

EVERY SINGLE ONE having their I-Phone, I-Pad, Smart phone, Laptop or what ever other electronic device turned on. ALL looking at the SAME weather site. ALL OF THEM!

Not, one doing it and relaying information to the others.

Now, let's look at that for a second:

"Brotherly trust" obviously didn't exist. They couldn't trust each other to get the weather and relay the information to the rest. They had to get it for them selves. "Second hand" information just isn't good enough.

Sheesh!

And yes, I too was semi-guilty. Though I actually RANG the weather people and got it "from the source".

Yes. there was a bit of "You don't want to risk it" said to people to stop the person flying off and taking a chance. This worked.

There are few and I am talking less than probably 5 times in my life where I have been in a situation where someone has had to stop me doing something "stupid". (DON'T ASK - you won't be be told.)

The idea that people "promote" this comerardery (how ever it is spelt - sorry still jet lagged.) is a good thing.

You learn to "Trust" others because of ....... Well, honestly I don't know.

One time when someone stepped up to the plate for me - luckily I guess - and I realised this later, my gratitude was dismissed and I was made to feel like a fool.

This is NOT a good thing to promote positive re-enforcement.

Subsequent attempts have also yielded similar results. So again, it destroys the idea of "people are good".

There ARE exceptions I know, but to belive it as a general thing is foolish. You are leaving yourself open to all sorts of nasty stuff.

Anyway, enough of that.

"We all have our time." is another line of thought.

Many pilots say to people who are going up on a flight: "The most dangerous part is over. You got to the airport ok."

I can belive that in many ways, but really I am more of the idea that when it is our time, we are going to go no matter what we do.

Sure you can expidite it by what is called J-Walking, or crossing at "incorrect" places, or we can cross when the little lite says "Cross now".

But really neither is any more dangerous than the other.

If a car swearvs along the street and mounts the footpath, you are a gonner if you are waiting for the light to allow you to cross.

Likewise if the car's breaks fail, the driver is sending an SMS, talking on the phone, or anything else, while you are walking over the street when the light says "WALK".

When you time is up, it is up.

Try to not tempt fate, but also try to enjoy life and the wonders it can bring.

Quote: Flying Dog

"EVERY SINGLE ONE having their I-Phone, I-Pad, Smart phone, Laptop or what ever other electronic device turned on. ALL looking at the SAME weather site. ALL OF THEM!

Not, one doing it and relaying information to the others."

This is not a bad thing at all.

What I see is not so much people "not trusting each other", but people assessing a common hazard and making suggestions to each other about the management of it, being whether they leave in their plane given their licence/certificate qualifications and aircraft capabilities (Job Hazard Assessment). It is also about peoples responsibility to actually have the right information first hand such as Wx from origin to destination available in the cocpit again raised in another thread on this forum. The prime source of you safety infomation should be something YOU are comfortable with.

The days of the PIC actually taking unchallengable control of aircraft (commercial pilots) are well and truly over, after many fatalities related to aircrew's reluctance to speak up and challenge the pilot, even recently with that pilot that "lost it" mid flight where the copilot took control of the aircraft and reset the door code so the pilot could not re-enter the cockpit. I would think it is fair time lesser pilots lost that same chip on their shoulder about being PIC, and realised that the experience and recommendations of the many may in fact be worthy of listening to.

Once again I am no aviation expert nor am I "critcising the person", but happy to "dicuss the principles". I have a vested interest in OH&S and Risk Management by occupaion.

Ok, I'm home now and have a bit more time. (I wish.)

(Let's play hyperthetical)

Another "scenario" is this:

Pilot 1 wants to get out of where they are.

Pilot 2 - and maybe others - say it is not a good idea.

So the scene is set: Does pilot 1 stay or go.

If pilot 1 "goes" there is "danger".

If he stays, there is also "danger", but of another sort.

So if he stays, problems get worse, and nasty things happen to Pilot 1.

Pilot 2 (and others) conditions are irrellivant.

So Pilot 1 has to live the rest of his life based on what he was told by others - be it with good intentions.

Say Pilot 1 goes and "gets through" by the skin of their teeth, he is better off than if they stay.

So, really where does the ultimate resopnsibility lie?

What is the danger if pilot stays? Property damage should not be counted. So please explain the danger from NOT flying?

You're kidding, right? You think the probability of being injured or killed is no different at a controlled intersection than an uncontrolled one?

Probabilty x consequence = risk. Simple 2 factor theory. Do it often enough and it will happen - simple probabilty theory.

Staying safe is simply about reducing your exposure to hazards.

Dog I'm not quite sure what you are getting at.

The responsibility of your flight always rests with you. Not ATC, not your pax, not based on the words of others. The bottom line is it is always your responsibility to check wx and make a decision based on factors affecting you, which could be completely different from another pilot next to you.

Are you flying an IFR aircraft from a radar Class C aerodrome with SIDs to depart and ILS to return? Is your rating current? Is the take off minima met for your aircraft, whether fixed wing single, multi or heli? If your instrument rating is out of date, are you and your pax happy for a private flight to be done on a PIFR? If at night, are you night current and is the aircraft NVFR? Are you flying a day VFR only aircraft, without suitable instruments? How much instrument training have you had? Is there high terrain on or near the route? Have you calculated an LSALT, and do you have a plan if you don't believe you can maintain this? How much general experience do you have? Do you have personal minimums, and if so, why should you break them? Do you really need to go or is it better to stay in a motel?

It is quite possible that one pilot can depart legally and safely, but the pilot standing next to them could not.

I really don't get your point Dog.

Re your group of pilots all getting their own weather. That's what they are legally required to do, and practically it is the safest. Four people died last year after the high hours pilot got lazy and phoned a relative at the destination for weather. The relative had no meteorology or aviation experience whatsoever.

There are people you can trust with your life, but certainly not one picked out of a roomful of unknowns at a fly in.

As far as "your time's up" is concerned, you have a huge control over that event, ranging from not getting into a dangerous situation, to actually taking a look before you walk under that bus.

Without referring to any particular event, if you decide to fly without P&O calculations which would show your arrival time at 20 mins after last light, fate will be waiting for you.

Ok,

By the way my point is not specifically to do with flying, but more life in general.

"Getting into a dangerous situation".

How "Safe" is it to fly? Some people would say it is not safe at all.

Others advocate that the most dangerous part is the drive to the airport.

We can argue about "what is safe and what is not" and "Risk minimisation" and all that stuff.

Sure it is valid and following those "rules" you can extend your life, but.....!

Ok, another example - a bit of a joke in some ways.

A bloke goes to the doctor. He is middle aged and getting worried about his health.

He smokes, drinks, and pretty well lives a "wild" life.

"Doctor, you have to help me. I really want to live a LONG life. I want to make it to 100!" He exclaims to the doctor.

The doctor quizzes him on his lifestyle and his habbits, then after a lot of thought he tells the man, "You have to stop smoking. Stop drinking, Eat good/healthy food. Go to bed early each day, get up early. Walk a lot." And the list goes on

The man thinks seriously about these instructions. They are LIFE CHANGING, though that is what he wants: To live to 100.

He looks at the doctor after a lot of consideration, "Will I really live to 100 if I do all these things?"

The doctor looks at him blankly and replies:

"No, but it will fell like it."

Taking this "taking it safe" to the extreme - which is a good place to take theories to see how well they hold up:

You can sit at home in your bomb proof house with 100 years of food supply and water incase of a nuclear bomb and know you will never be injured, or you can live life.

The problem with living in your bomb proof house is you can't be sure of EVERYTHING. Food storage, water purity and so on - without going to yet another extreme.

So one day you are sitting there eating your food and die of food poisoning because you made a simple mistake.

Me: I'd rather "take my chances" and at least enjoy life.

People are always good at handing out "post event" opinions, when really by that stage they are accademic.

In my experiance - which to most of you is negligable - is the ONLY OTHER person/people you can really "trust" are people to take action BEFORE the event.

Alas there are things going against them nowadays. The law is one of them. There seems to be fine line of people's rights and "arresting" people. Which basically is what you would be doing if you were to stop someone doing something which YOU thought was dangerous to them.

So as good as your intentions may be, if you stop someone doing something, there is a legal can of worms you have opened about stopping them doing what they want to do - and unless you are a doctor who can deem them "unfit to make rational decisions" then you are not on firm grounds.

Anyway, enough of my ranting.

I guess there are better things for you to do than read my attempt to explain my skewed view of things in ways which others can clearly understand.

Bye for now.

It is skewed, but to the wrong end of the pendulum.

It is possible to conduct dangerous operations safely with a thorough understanding of the risks, and meticulous observation of what's required to mitigate each risk.

Flying just has more fatal consequences than most activities.

As we see in your example living a supposedly "safe" lifestyle can kill you if you fail to observe risk mitigation and eat some food left out in the open above 4 deg and below 60 deg.

Perhaps we should always keep in mind how others speak of the pilot who suffered a terminal case of Get-home-itis:

"What a dickhead!"

Who would want that as an epitaph?

OME

You're kidding, right? You think the probability of being injured or killed is no different at a controlled intersection than an uncontrolled one?Probabilty x consequence = risk. Simple 2 factor theory. Do it often enough and it will happen - simple probabilty theory.

Staying safe is simply about reducing your exposure to hazards.

Rankamateur that would be the result, but not the practical outcome he is trying to get across.

Ok, another attempt to "explain" my view:

People/anyone usually have two choices:

Do what they want,

or:

Do what others say.

I guess the most powerful verb in the English language is CHOOSE. (as in pick one of many.)

A lot of what I was reading is that it seems to be "more correct" to do what the majority want rather than what YOU want.

Lemmings come to mind.

Sure there are times when it is better to do what the majority want. But others when it is better to do what YOU want.

So back to my EXAMPLE of when/how to cross the road: With or againist the lights.

The law aside, there is no guarantee that either is safer.

The person crossing the road has the final say in what they do.

Why are people seemingly obsessed with pointing out the failings of people who made the "WRONG" decission and the end result is death?

Granted it is/was not advisable to go flying at/just before sunset. Sure it was not advisable to not have weather. etc, etc.

However, the PIC made a choice. The important thing for US - who are still alive - is to LEARN from what happened rather than JUDGE the decission.

NO ONE knows what was going through their head when the choice was made. But we can see the results.

Ok, another attempt to "explain" my view:

 

Granted it is/was not advisable to go flying at/just before sunset. Sure it was not advisable to not have weather. etc, etc.

 

However, the PIC made a choice. The important thing for US - who are still alive - is to LEARN from what happened rather than JUDGE the decission.

 

NO ONE knows what was going through their head when the choice was made. But we can see the results.

I'll take a guess what was going through the pilots head.

Hmm, it's only 28 nm to home base and my hanger, my cars there I want to get home, I'll be right it happens to everyone else it won't happen to me.

Well unfortunatley the pilots surname that night changed to someone else and he didn't get home and now never will.

And you are correct, we must Learn from what happened and seriously consider the rammifications of taking risks.

Alf

So back to my EXAMPLE of when/how to cross the road: With or againist the lights.

The law aside, there is no guarantee that either is safer.

 

The person crossing the road has the final say in what they do.

There is a guarantee that crossing the road 0n green light is safer, as you can expect most of the traffic to give way to you.

There is no guarantee that doing it either way is perfectly safe.

It's the same difference as with accepting that there are some risks in life (or flying to be more on topic) and actively looking for risky situations.

Why are people seemingly obsessed with pointing out the failings of people who made the "WRONG" decission and the end result is death?

Granted it is/was not advisable to go flying at/just before sunset. Sure it was not advisable to not have weather. etc, etc.

 

However, the PIC made a choice. The important thing for US - who are still alive - is to LEARN from what happened rather than JUDGE the decission.

The main reason for this is that a decision of one man may or will impact us all. Since CASA and RAAus are both organizations with a primary goal of making flying safe for everyone if they notice a trend of people making a choice that is not safe they will have to regulate it more and put in more restrictions and supervision, one of which could be a requirement for lodging a flight plan for every flight with them and them having the ability to forbid you to make such flight in case your arrival is after sun set (similar to traveling through controlled air space in a RA plane).

Can you see how this would lead to a death of recreation flying for everyone?

Your on the right track Zibi. A lot of background people who pay the bills (insurers, airfield owners) harden their attitudes with each avoidable crash.

You have to make the decision. How you make it is the real question. I have done things other might see as dangerous, but I weighed up all the problems that could occur and worked out how to lessen their impact or negate it alltogether. That is what I have been doing for many years and it also seems to be what the so called experts are now promoting. The difference is that I don't use their buzz words, nor do I write it all down and give it numerical status. So far it has worked for me and I will continue, I will also continue to question others who think that the current teachings are the best product.

The decision you make is a judgement. IF you assess ALL the factors and calmly and disspassionately arrive at your decision then you are MANAGING the situation somewhere near optimally, and would get a better result than when the process is more chaotic and assessments of say, your skill level and the need to get there is raised, and the difficulty of executing the task is underestimated.

Over the years I have developed a "test" of the advisability of any proposed course of action.. It starts off.." At the inquiry........ ? ........ How would it look?. Makes you re-examine it from another perspective. Nev

You have to make the decision. How you make it is the real question. I have done things other might see as dangerous, but I weighed up all the problems that could occur