Odds of an incident

[markendee]

When we hear of an incident that results in injury the comment is often made along the lines of why would someone take off and attempt a flight under those conditions. (weather, health, engine problem or whatever)

 

I have thought about this and this is what I have concluded.

 

We have all got away with it before. An experienced commercial pilot may have flown a thousand time under adverse weather conditions and only come to grief once - that once is enough.

 

We have the 'it won't happen to me' attitude and it is possibly not a bad thing or else we would be afraid to walk out the door.

 

It is horrible for all concerned when a serious incident occurs.

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

Whether it's an individual, or an organisation, it's all about attitude.

 

I spend a lot of my working time trying to convince execs that it's a safety culture that makes you safe, not a safety management system. Culture is just another word for the collective attitude of a group.

 

Qantas developed an international reputation for safety largely as a result of their culture. They didn't say "we're so good we don't have accidents". They didn't say "we hope we wont have an accident". They said "when we have our accident". That attitude shaped their thinking about risk and translated into good safety performance.

 

It's this state of "chronic unease" that keeps an individual or an organisation thinking about where their next accident is coming from and how to avoid it. It's the opposite to sticking your head in the sand and hoping nothing will go wrong. But unfortunately the less conservative attitudes are associated with certain personality types so there's little chance of those people changing.

 

In my view, given what we now know about risk, complacency can be considered a form or recklessness. I also believe that ego is a sign of a reckless personality. The pilot population is notorious for its large proportion of egomaniacs and there are literally hundreds of investigation reports showing how highly respected commercial and military pilots ignored the warning signs or bent the rules because rules only apply to lesser mortals. Perhaps they were respected for the wrong reasons.

 

Rules also have no effect on people with non-conformist personalities. So we can see that rules have a limited effect on overall safety performance. Like I said in another thread, the best way to deal with people like that is for the peer group to be very vocal in its intolerance of recklessness.

 

 

[facthunter]

Attitude/training.

 

Personality types/egos

 

In the earlier days of aviation, pilots were a bunch of individualists. (of course I'm generalising), and sometimes there were tyrants in the cockpit who considered themselves infallible and sought no input whatever from the lesser mortal who happened to be flying with them. These people were an accident going somewhere to happen. These days, in a mature and well-run organisation, those types are weeded out, pretty well. (in australia anyhow, as the rest of the crew will not tolerate it, and the organisation doesn't want it ).

 

The training has evened out the idiosynchrasiies & variables to the extent that ALL pilots are supposed to be able to fly with each other equally well within an organisation due to the use of SOP's .( standard operating procedures) and uniform training, to achieve this.

 

In our operations, I agree that a good attitude to safety is necessary to be present constantly to achieve the desired result, as even small lapses can be fatal.

 

Just how much training influences this, I can not quantify but I feel it is most significant and the most effective time is in the beginning when the skills are being passed on and it is all very new. The student will imitate the instructor and adopt the attitudes & standards of his/her peers as well. That is why it is so important to set a consistently good example of a safety culture at all times, for instructors specifically and also for pilots who are fully trained and might be considered as examples to follow.

 

Cowboy pilots produce their imitators probably more effectively than the safe and sure operators. This is where the competitive instinct and over-developed ego can be your downfall. Sorry this is a bit long-winded, but I hope it's comprehensible Nev..

 

 

[alf jessup]

Human Nature

 

We are all human, there are people out there with the won't happen to me or get there itis, or I have flown in these conditions before and made it, some of them also make it in the accident reports as we all know, some also make it home and do the same thing again and again as there number is not yet up. and there are the ones that have a healthy respect for breathing and access the conditions and make a sensible decision to stay on the ground.

 

One thing about being human is you don't know another persons next move is, I have worked as a safety officer offshore and investigated incidents where experienced people have done the job a thousand times over and done it right and the one time they changed the way they did it bit them on the butt.

 

I once heard a fair comment, if you had the choice to work with humans or tigers which would you do?, me I would take the tiger as it has only one thing on its mind, and that all it wants to do with me is eat me. So I only have too look out for that, people well what are they going to do next?? who knows.

 

cheers

 

Alf

 

 

[Mazda]

I think it is in a Flight Safety article this month which mentions that these things can become "normal" when repeated. So if someone (as in the Flight Safety article) does a beat up and stall turn a few times without crashing, it becomes OK - when it is clearly not for someone that does not have appropriate training.

 

"Appropriate training" is the important thing there. Flying in IMC is not terribly dangerous for someone in a properly equipped aircraft and with a current instrument rating. Flying into IMC for a VFR pilot in a VFR aircraft is often fatal.

 

Flying aerobatics is safe enough when in an aerobatic aircraft and an aerobatic trained pilot, with sufficient height to recover by the chosen base height. Low level aerobatics with an untrained pilot and non-aerobatic aircraft could be fatal.

 

So my thoughts on this are to get as much good training as you can!

 

 

[Yenn]

With aerobatics training will not make you safe, it may lower the odds but some of the worlds best have died, just because it is dangerous. We can improve the odds by keeping away from anything that could be dangerous.

 

There was a fatality I saw written up recently where an engine failed on final and the plane crashed short of the strip. If you have enough height to glide to a landing spot you will be safer. If you steer clear of tiger country, likewise.

 

You cannot make flying safe, but you can make it less dangerous by exercising good airmanship.

 

 

[bushpilot]

Insurance companies view

 

Insurance companies have a view on the risk that we represent to them:

 

I recently took out insurance on my new Jabiru J160 - $80,000 cover, hangered at Bathurst, NSW, no un-specified pilots, no training allowed. Premium (best of 4 quotes) QBE = $3,600 (10% no claim bonus each year after 1 year)

 

My BMW X5 is valued at $95,000, garaged near Bathurst, any driver of any age. Premium NRMAI = $670

 

And as premiums are determined by the underwriters claims:loss ratio, the assumption has to be that rec. aviation insurers expect a high ratio of claims.

 

Only we, collectively, can make insurance cheaper over time.... and save a lot of damage and injury along the way...

 

 

[vk3auu]

It always intrigues me that there is always weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth when someone dies in an aircraft accident, but motor car accidents pass almost unremarked. I wonder, why is it so.

 

I can't agree that we have weeded out the cowboys among us. It might be that the aircraft that we fly are a bit more expensive than the early rag and tube types, so we take a bit more care with them. Unfortunately, the more expensive ones generally need a bit more space to get down successfully in the case of an engine out, so that while the engines may be more reliable, it is still not advisable to fly them over tiger country.

 

David

 

 

[Yenn]

2 reasons your bike may be cheaper to insure.

 

There are a lot more bikes on the road so the risk is more easily assessed.

 

If 1 bike crashes it is a much lower percentage of the number insured than if 1 plane crashes.

 

 

[Mazda]

I think we all know aviation has risks, it's about managing them. People have crashed doing aeros, people have crashed when the aircraft broke up in flight too - but it isn't common. If we look at managing risk we have to consider where the risk lies. Do people mainly crash from in-flight structural failure, aerobatics (when trained), or things like flying into bad weather without an instrument rating, controlled flight into terrain or loss of control at low level?

 

I think all we can do is to accept a level of risk, but try to manage the risk and minimise unnecessary risk.

 

 

[Ben Longden]

Pip Boorman, aerobatic pilot par excellence made an astonishing comment the other night as guest speaker at the Shepp Aero Club Wings Night.

 

"when I preflight, I am looking for any reason NOT to fly" he said.

 

Nuff said.

 

Ben

 

 

[facthunter]

Way of putting it.

 

The statement could be read negatively. I don't think Pip would be stating it that way. With reference to aircraft faults, I feel that with plenty of unknown hazards in aviation, why take known ones into the air with you, when YOU have the choice. Nev

 

 

[storchy neil]

sorry factunter but but if you new pip that is the way he would look at it

 

his life is in his hands and eyes neil

 

 

[Ben Longden]

I'm with Neil.

 

Pip Boorman is one of a rare breed of men; When he speaks, only a fool ignores him.

 

The reason Pip has been flying so long, and getting paid to entertain people is because of his attitude towards safety.

 

For him there is no grey area... its safe or unsafe. When he pre-flights his Edge 540, he is looking for any issue with the aircraft that would make his wife a widow.

 

Ben

 

 

[ab0767]

I'm with Pip. I am dead scared of heights, which is one of the reasons I learnt to fly, I told my instructor that when it comes to flying I am a coward. His reply was that it was a quality he admired in pilots - when in doubt don't. It's those with a false sense of bravado that threaten our freedoms and I for one have no problem reporting them. Self regulation it's called and if we don't do it then it's back to CASA who will do it with no other justification than revenue raising. Think about it

 

 

[facthunter]

Comprehension.

 

Neil, read my post carefully again, because you have read into it the opposite of what I intended. Perhaps I may have to rewrite it. Nev..

 

 

[storchy neil]

I don't think Pip would be stating it that way:sorry:facthunter my storch s was in the hangar next to pip one day i was doing a preflight when pip walked past and said good day for flying neil are you looking for a reason not to go flying i did look at him stupid well neil if you find something wrong you wont be flying will you neil

 

 

[facthunter]

Words.

 

I am not SAYING that Pip didn't use those words.! I have NO doubt that he did and DOES'. The usual INTERPRETATION might be along the lines of he doesn't want to go flying, when he is emphasising that he is doing a thorough pre-flight inspection.

 

My original post was titled "WAY OF PUTTING IT". and I said that I didn't think that he would mean it in a negative way. Please read carefully what I have said, & don't jump to conclusions. Nev..