Accident Investigation: Is Age a Factor

[M61A1]

Most accidents seem to be caused by fatigue, or as I would rather call it boredom. When we drive a car every decision is pre made for us by some petty beaurocrat, there is very little decision making left to the driver.

Driving a car has very little in common with piloting an aeroplane. Cars are passing within a metre or so from each other at closing speeds of 200kph. That doesnt happen very often with aircraft and if it does there is far more room to manouever. Flying needs intense concentration at beginning and end of a flight and maybe if there is a problem, during flight, but there is seldom a need for extremely fast reflex action, in fact acting too fast can lead to incorrect decision making.

 

The way I see it age is not the problem, old or young can be good pilots, but it more an attitude of mind rather than years.

 

.

I would certainly agree in regard to boredom, whether you're in a car or a plane, there is an optimum stress level. I can't count the number of people I see on the highway at a mind numbing 100k's an hour, doing almost anything but being focused, to quote someone else "it's better than valium". I understand pilots in heavily automated aircraft have similar issues.In regard to the beginning and end of flights, isn't that exactly where most of our latest problems are occurring? Something out of the ordinary occurs, then we are hearing about them on the news. To make the "right decision" at the "right time", is important.

I think that age deterioration can affect these outcomes, but also agree that it is the attitude that will make all the difference. If you are aware of performance degradation, you can allow for it (to a degree), but to deny that it exists, is asking for trouble. As mentioned previously, you're risking no-one but yourself in a light aircraft in the right place, I'd hate to see legislation take that right away.

 

As for the commonality between driving and flying..... I read about some study a while ago suggesting that the average driver in heavy traffic, had about as much to deal with as a 747 pilot on final.

 

 

[poteroo]

Having just recently passed my 50th 'anniversary' of holding a flying licence - I'm probably a fair example of a 73 y.o. who still has good skills and disciplines because they were whacked into me by some tough CFI's and CP's along the way. As well, I've averaged some 250 hrs per year over that period - which is probably enough to keep you flying instinctively in terms of the skills. Instructing keeps your brain alive because you are constantly teaching principles, and being tested yourself on a regular basis. I can honestly say that I've never fallen asleep at the wheel, and so far, handled every emergency without scratching too much paint. But, I expect to eventually run up against cognitive testing by the regulators, in one shape or another. I'm dreading that day, because it's very likely the regulator will set some arbitrary 'line' - fail heaps of us - and then find that ongoing research shows they set it on the wrong basis, and at too high levels. By then, one is likely to have really quit in disgust! I expect to see GA and RAAus suffer a massive thinning of experience once this testing becomes widespread.

 

happy days,

 

 

[turboplanner]

Given that RAA by its nature has older pilots, then it's critical for RAA itself to be proactively working to achieve appropriate medical standards rather than just piggybacking on whatever broad-based standards are applied to car drivers.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Diabetes restrictions

 

It looks like this has just been changed in March 2013. I'm not familiar with the levels, so don't know whether the latest version is good or bad.

 

Embedded in this link is a link to the Austroads site detailing the changes from the March 2012 version

 

http://www.diabetesvic.org.au/living-with-diabetes/driving-and-diabetes

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Diabetes restrictionsIt looks like this has just been changed in March 2013. I'm not familiar with the levels, so don't know whether the latest version is good or bad.

 

Embedded in this link is a link to the Austroads site detailing the changes from the March 2012 version

 

http://www.diabetesvic.org.au/living-with-diabetes/driving-and-diabetes

That link contains some quite interesting information Turbo . . . ., In the UK, pilots with "Mild" Diabetes, are allowed to fly Microlight / Ultralight / Permit type aircraft on the N.P.P.L. regime, ( National PPL ) but NOT G.A. aircraft, ( even though the NPPL Single Engine Piston rating covers aircraft with MTOW up to 2,000 Kgs. . . . ) providing that their particular form of Diabetes is controlled by tablets, ( metaformin, etc. . .) taken orally. If they have to change to INJECTING insulin at some point, then they are not allowed any flying privileges at all. Although. . . . this may well change within the next three years, due to questions which have been asked in the European Parliament. (probably) to the detriment of member state mild diabetic pilots. . . . . We shall watch this with interest. . . . there are a quite a few people flying from my local airfield who may be directly affected by any change in European legislation when the E.A.S.A. rules become fully effective in the UK. . . .

 

I'll keep you posted on this one, it's interesting.

 

Phil

 

 

[metalman]

Being a "young 46yo" I have yet to experience a lot of the stuff that age will bring, but I think being humble enough to know when to hang up the headset would be the hard part, I've got a mate who gave it away recently, he says he was worrying about mistakes and errors and enjoying the flying less, so the plane gets sold and that's that. The good thing , he was out at the field on Sunday and did a lap with one of the other guys in the same type as his last plane, a great thing to see him still getting airborne and not having the worry of staying ahead of the plane.

 

I guess it's a hard desicion to give up something that's been a huge passion for many years but at some point that step will need to be taken,

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Just an adjunct to my previous post,. . . my business partner is afflicted with a form of Diabetes, and is using metaformin tablets taken orally, but. . .If he forgets to take his pills at the right time, . . .he can not only NOT DRIVE, he can barely hold a cognitive conversation, and I really Wouldn't like him to give me a "Lift Home" in that condition, much less attempt to fly an aeroplane. Some types of diabetes appear to affect different people in different ways,. . . and YES,. . . I am aware that statisically, two out of every five persons in Europe ( approximately ) will get diabetes at some time in their life,. . . this must be a worry to anyone wishing to set a standard as to who can fly and who can't,. . . . peopleARE affected DIFFERENTLY by this condition. My partner has been told that, should his condition become more severe, then his firearms license could be withdrawn, ( he is an award winning clay pigeon shooter ) and he is obviously concerned by this, although, he won't be stopped from shooting, it will simply mean that he will have to get rid of his own expensive and accurate guns, and use the hire stuff at the club . . . . .. ( he's horrified about that bit. . .! ) Bit like losing a pilot licence ??

 

Anyway. . . .I don't wish to hijack this very interesting discussion, but wanted to comment on that particular bit of it.

 

I'm an OLD flier, and, regrettably, no one has told me yet during a flight Re-Val that my skills have deteriorated. . . . . maybe the instructors just are not psychologically trained for OLD PEOPLE testing ? ? ? ? Dunno.

 

MIND YOU,. . . . I have NOT had any nasty shocks whilst flying recently, so I have no IDEA how I'd cope.

 

Phil

 

 

[Bandit12]

Is there any cognitive testing currently for getting a drivers license over a certain age? Or are those sorts of things more of a judgement call by the medico?

 

I would be very concerned to see cognitive testing introduced. For it to mean anything at all, there would have to be considerable research which identifies which areas of cognition are important, more research into whether areas of deficit can be compensated for in other ways, and a strong correlational link demonstrated between cognitive deficits and a significantly higher level of risk (because you can't get causal links in this sort of research).

 

As Poteroo pointed out, there would probably be some sort of arbitrary level set which would turn out completely inappropriate. You just have to look at the full scale IQ cutoff of 70 for intellectual disability funding to see how they already use such nonsense. At this time it is pretty much impossible to measure cognitive abilities with a less than +/- 3 point accuracy anyway, and it is expensive (~$600 for a bare bones assessment, up to triple that for a comprehensive one) and is unable to be repeated at less than 2 yearly intervals. And lets not forget that some people who may have a lower ability in a certain area may not have so due to age related decline - they may always have had a low ability in that area and learned to compensate.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

It seems to me that there is a lot of people out there that are so far in thought that they don't know where they have been, or where they are going.If I don't fly in controlled airspace or over built up areas then leave me alone to enjoy my life the way I want to.

 

If I can't live my live then you might as well kill me at 50 for everybody else's protection.

Hey VFR. . .

 

I KNOW what you are saying,. . . . I've spoken to people who are so fed up with officialdom in the UK, tha they are talking about "Going Bush" and flying illegally,. . . .ie, without a permit or anything else. Whilst I can't agree with this philosopy, I can see where they are coming from. In the " Old days" when we taught ourselves to fly these new microlight thingies, . . .there were NO regulations, No insurance available, No annual permit inspections,. . .no rules no nothing, and a lot of people have been working towards ( Rearwards ? ) to restore those halcyon days. They HAVE, . . well, sort of,. . .got their wish to a point, with the relatively new S.S.D.R. ( Single Seat De-Regulated) aircraft, which, whilst requiring a PILOT LICENCE of some sort ( what a good idea. . .! ) they don't have to have a Permit to fly, and the owner has to carry out all repairs and maintenance off his own bat. There are several types available, both three axis and flexwing, ( have a look on the web for SSDR in the UK and you'll see the range available )

 

These guys want to get back to brass tacks and the early days, and have no wish to fly in Controlled Airspace either. . . . HOWEVER,. . . . I'm not advocating that YOU do this,. . . a bit of Controlled airspace flying now and again keeps you sharp., . . .but that's just MY opinion .

 

Fly safely, ( or at least,.. . . try to. . .)

 

Phil

 

 

[turboplanner]

VFR is not taking current public liability laws into consideration; they are what's driving this - prohibiting the CWA from selling cakes unless they have completed a food handling course etc.

 

Even if you fly by yourself and only kill yourself, property may be destroyed, other people may be injured, and your estate will be sued - so loved ones could finish up destitute.

 

Negligence has to be proved in a Court, so the cases driving this aren't frivolous.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Is there any cognitive testing currently for getting a drivers license over a certain age? Or are those sorts of things more of a judgement call by the medico?I would be very concerned to see cognitive testing introduced. For it to mean anything at all, there would have to be considerable research which identifies which areas of cognition are important, more research into whether areas of deficit can be compensated for in other ways, and a strong correlational link demonstrated between cognitive deficits and a significantly higher level of risk (because you can't get causal links in this sort of research).

 

As Poteroo pointed out, there would probably be some sort of arbitrary level set which would turn out completely inappropriate. You just have to look at the full scale IQ cutoff of 70 for intellectual disability funding to see how they already use such nonsense. At this time it is pretty much impossible to measure cognitive abilities with a less than +/- 3 point accuracy anyway, and it is expensive (~$600 for a bare bones assessment, up to triple that for a comprehensive one) and is unable to be repeated at less than 2 yearly intervals. And lets not forget that some people who may have a lower ability in a certain area may not have so due to age related decline - they may always have had a low ability in that area and learned to compensate.

Hiya Bandit,

 

My mate Lou popped in to the studio this afternoon ( She's a sheila driving instructor for a crust ) She said that she'd had an old Lass referred to her by DVLA ( that's the governing aUthority for drivers in the Uk ) The lady she had to assess was over 80 yrs old, but she said that the woman was fine, apart from the fact that she had a highly developed sense of "Road Rage" swearing mildly at other drivers who were obviously not as good as she was. . . .! ! ! She had been involved in a minor "fender bender" a few moths previously, and the magistrate had ruled that she had a couple of driving lessons to see if she was in fact capable of driving a car safely.. . .anyway, Lou said she was really good at all the excercises, and put her in for a test next week, so we'll see. . . .! !

 

You may wonder why an attractive female driving instructor would pop in to see an old guy like me ? Well,. . . I'm NOT going to tell you, so there.

 

Phil

 

 

[ahlocks]

..You may wonder why an attractive female driving instructor would pop in to see an old guy like me ?

No, not really..

 

[fly_tornado]

maybe she just moonlights as a driving instructor when she's not nursing?

 

 

[facthunter]

It hadn't occurred to me to wonder, but since it is important enough for you to mention it.....Does she work for an escort agency as an end of day job?. Women relax with me because they know I'm not a threat, and I've given up trying to understand them... Nev

 

 

[VFR Pilot]

Hey Turbo, with respect,

 

If I was worried about injuring somebody or damaging property then I would lock myself away and never venture outside at all! That's not to say I don't take the upmost care or have the upmost respect for other people or their property.

 

It's just that sometimes sh.....t happens, it's a fact of life. Just having insurance won't prevent something from happening.

 

I wasn't put on this planet to make somebody else's life better or safer to the detriment of my own happieness, I am not an ant that will give everything I hold dear for the greater good of the colony. If life is not enjoyable then I don't see the point!

 

I could have my freedom taken away from me today and tomorrow some nut case shoots twenty children dead. How bad is my flying then?

 

When I am to old and am not a safe pilot any more then and only then I will sell my plane and stop flying.

 

I don't need some idiot public servant who probably dosen't have a clue about what he is talking about to tell me that I am to old to fly, just to make himself feel important.

 

That's just how I feel and what I believe.

 

 

[turboplanner]

VFR, my point was that the people whose property has been damaged, who've been injured, or have been killed because of negligence have grown to such a proportion that the laws were changed to protect them.

 

For example, from memory 40,000 Australians a year are hospitalised because of food poisoning - where someone who has cooked and given them or sold them food, but has been negligent in it's preparation.

 

The problem with the new laws is that they only kick in when there's an accident, and it's hard to prove you were not negligent when there's someone lying on the ground.

 

The "I fly by myself and the risks are mine" story comes up quite a lot, but I was pointing out that even then you could be unlucky enough for a part of the aircraft to fall on a house or a person, or to collide with a fully loaded Dash 8.

 

So any allegation that age reduces the safe operation of an aircraft below the Industry's cutting edge standard needs to be addressed if we are not to finish up with an over-reaction.

 

 

[VFR Pilot]

VFR, my point was that the people whose property has been damaged, who've been injured, or have been killed because of negligence have grown to such a proportion that the laws were changed to protect them.For example, from memory 40,000 Australians a year are hospitalised because of food poisoning - where someone who has cooked and given them or sold them food, but has been negligent in it's preparation.

 

The problem with the new laws is that they only kick in when there's an accident, and it's hard to prove you were not negligent when there's someone lying on the ground.

 

The "I fly by myself and the risks are mine" story comes up quite a lot, but I was pointing out that even then you could be unlucky enough for a part of the aircraft to fall on a house or a person, or to collide with a fully loaded Dash 8.

 

So any allegation that age reduces the safe operation of an aircraft below the Industry's cutting edge standard needs to be addressed if we are not to finish up with an over-reaction.

Turbo, I appreciate and agree with your views on this matter.

 

I think it just is all about the overreaction. In today's society the pendulum always swings too far in the opposite direction.

 

cheers

 

 

[turboplanner]

I agree - potential over-reaction is the most concerning thing and it would be nice for RAA to start pro-active discussion ahead of any automotive based blanket standards.

 

Ironically GA pilots have a better chance of not getting caught up in this.

 

 

[M61A1]

No doubt, massive overkill will be what we get. It is pretty much the way in this country.....take a reasonable concept, then twist it until it resembles nothing of the original idea, then spout on about your wonderful new safety initiative.

 

I don't know what they would use as an accurate assessment of competence, the current driving tests aren't even an accurate test of competence. I don't think that age itself is an accurate indicator either.....I know seniors who drive/fly with a high degree of accuracy, but I also see some that quite obviously have age related impairment. Finding a fair means of consistently testing people would be difficult, even doctors, can be sympathetic to someone who dreads losing that independence, but may well kill someone else.

 

My grandfather was one of those who should have had his licence removed about 15 years before he actually did(forcibly cancelled).

 

It would seem that some of the worst ones, are also the least likely to self assess accurately, and take the greatest offence when their skills are questioned.

 

 

[planet47]

Just some light reading at the following sites:-

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22571979

 

&

 

http://www.thecjc.org/pdf/gc09/gc09-2.pdf

 

Good picture of comparison of a coronal view of a normal brain and one that is affected by Alzheimers but have no idea how old the individuals were who owned the brains pictured.

 

It also emphasises that neuropsychological assessment is the only way to measure alterations in cognitive and behaviour function.

 

 

 

[Phil Perry]

VFR is not taking current public liability laws into consideration; they are what's driving this - prohibiting the CWA from selling cakes unless they have completed a food handling course etc.Even if you fly by yourself and only kill yourself, property may be destroyed, other people may be injured, and your estate will be sued - so loved ones could finish up destitute.

Negligence has to be proved in a Court, so the cases driving this aren't frivolous.

Where do you draw the line indeed. . . .? A recent edict from our much maligned European Parliament criticised the many "Womens' Institute" groups countrywide for making their own JAM,. . . . ( I'm being serious here. . . AND I used to adore "Mrs Trewrens Jams" much advertised on the TV, when I was in Austrailia,. . . .I wonder if she used secondhand jars as well ? ? ? ) and putting the product into PRE-USED jars. The new law states that, only NEW jars may be used, as there may be bacteria in secondhand glass receptacles if they are not scrupulously cleansed to EUROPEAN HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS prior to the insertion of the jam, or other preserve product. . . . this, on the surface of it, sounds mildly reasonable BUT. . . .the W.I. have been making jam and other preserves since time immemorial, and no one seems to be able to produce any statistics, nor ANY evidence at all . . . .that ANYONE has EVER been adversely medically affected by a jar of jam supplied by the aforementioned organisation. I personally think that the "LINES" are being drawn far too hastily in some circumstances, and that we are rapidly going down a road which will inevitably result in nobody ever doing anything,. . . just in case it ends up with a lawsuit or worse. . . . ?

 

Just one oblique way of looking at it. . .?

 

Phil

 

 

[turboplanner]

The precedent case for all of this comes from a snail in a bottle of soft drink in Scotland.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

The precedent case for all of this comes from a snail in a bottle of soft drink in Scotland.

But. . . . . . Isn't it true that they actually put a WORM. . . . in bottles of Tequila made in Mexico, . . .and that you are not expected to actually drink the worm as well as the product ?? . . . ( Discounting war movies starring Tom Cruise ) Yes . . I've heard that story too, but I'LL bet a months pay that the European Parliament rule makers ( Approximately one thousand one hundred new "Rules" formulated every month. . .) have never heard about it, otherwise we'd have a LOT more regulations to contend with . . . . .

 

Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

VFR, my point was that the people whose property has been damaged, who've been injured, or have been killed because of negligence have grown to such a proportion that the laws were changed to protect them.For example, from memory 40,000 Australians a year are hospitalised because of food poisoning - where someone who has cooked and given them or sold them food, but has been negligent in it's preparation.

 

The problem with the new laws is that they only kick in when there's an accident, and it's hard to prove you were not negligent when there's someone lying on the ground.

 

The "I fly by myself and the risks are mine" story comes up quite a lot, but I was pointing out that even then you could be unlucky enough for a part of the aircraft to fall on a house or a person, or to collide with a fully loaded Dash 8.

 

So any allegation that age reduces the safe operation of an aircraft below the Industry's cutting edge standard needs to be addressed if we are not to finish up with an over-reaction.

YES YES YES,. . . . but my point in this would have to be that where does this stop ? . . . . YOU SIMPLY CANNOT protect everyone from everything. So, as long as regulations are SENSIBLE and reasonably thought out, I would have no problem or argument, nor would any reasonably thinking person. . . . . but, whe it comes to Goverment committees. . . . , ? usually, this is not the case, they ( so it occasionally appears anyway ) try to introduce legislation which covers every eventuality. The natural result of this will almost certainly result in EVERYTHING being banned, as it's all far too risky. ?

 

Things do appear to be going this way certainly in the UK, with Health and Safety now being extremely powerful and all pervasive, instead of being a sensible, well considered brake on dangerous, or perhaps sensibly questionable practices, whether these be in industry ( typical example ) or our beloved aviation, . . . the default decision almost always seems to be BAN IT, RESTRICT IT,. . . . OVER-REGULATE IT. . . CURTAIL IT. . . . etc. . . . .

 

So where do we go from there ? Any ideas, ?

 

Philip

 

 

[turboplanner]

What we did in the Australian transport industry when we are able to split out the number of truck driver deaths from fatigue (going to sleep at the wheel and driving off the road) was to be proactive and get in ahead of the governments who had never addressed the problem and were likely to over-react. Then when the government legislated, the Act was very precise and addressed the causes, and we are now over the moon at a steadily falling death statistics, drivers coming home to their families etc - a great success story.