Does "experience with no accidents" mean a pilot is "safe"

[Pilot DAR]

It has been proposed elsewhere that a pilot who has not had an accident is more safe than one who has.

What do we think, is this so? Is the pilot who has had a couple of small "events", and learned from them to prevent the next, more safe that a pilot who has yet to learn, and have "the big one"?

I admit it, I've had a few, though I have never injured anyone, nor ended a plane's life. I think I'm somewhat safe, but another [small] event or two in my career will mean that I'm still out there flying, and learning....

Thoughts?

[abgd]

Another concern is that choosing to have an accident can be a sensible decision. Obvious examples include EFATO turnbacks, hitting the far hedge rather than the near one in a forced landing. Precautionary landings with a relatively high risk of damage.

I wonder whether insisting too strongly on a zero-accident record might make for more dangerous pilots?

[PA28181]

Wouldn't you want to fly with someone who has had lots of incidents and crashes he will be so much more capable of handling an emergency than a pilot who has flown for 50 years blemish free.:)

[Katamarino]

I think that incidents have definitely made me a better pilot. I have never damaged an aircraft through my own mistake (and I hope and work hard to continue that!), but have had incidents such as electrical failure, partial engine failure, and gear up landing (due to mechanical failure). I feel that the experience gained in handling these is immensely valuable for any future unexpected events.

Of course, I have certainly made mistakes; I've just been lucky enough, or caught them soon enough, that no damage has been done; and this experience too is very helpful.

It's interesting, though; we can't really induce real emergencies to pilots to help them learn, so is there a way to capture this learning over and above what is already done with regards to practicing emergencies in training? The level of realism achievable by airline simulators is currently out of reach to we GA pilots, but with the advance of technology, maybe not forever?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Maybe the question is having a preventable accident?

For instance you can have a gear failure that can not be rectified in flight and you have to land gear up.

That is considered an accident however it is not the fault of the pilot.

On the other hand if you land short of the runway and damage the airplane that is preventable.

[abgd]

so is there a way to capture this learning over and above what is already done with regards to practicing emergencies in training? I fly/used to fly radio control helicopters - accidents are inevitable, sometimes costly, and being time-poor I don't enjoy fixing them as much as I used to. The accident types are different, of course, from those of full-scale aircraft but I certainly learned a lot about attention to detail in pre-flight checks. Also I noticed that if I fly when I'm tired or grumpy I'm much more likely to crash, so I don't.

The other thing you learn is how to crash well - accepting the inevitable and cutting the power to the rotor often saves a much worse accident. It won't teach you how to handle inadvertent IMC, but does teach some useful attitudes and how to stay calm under pressure.

[Solar]

Any experience should be a learning exercise I would have thought. Isn't there an expression that says experience is what you get immediately after you need it.
The best instructor I had was someone that seemed to have a complete affinity with the plane.
It was only years later that I learned that he had crashed shortly after getting his license.
I tend to say to students and some punters (at a suitable time and place) that pilots are not only trained to fly, but good pilots are trained to crash gently.
I have some acquaintances who have large amounts of logged hours which they tend to mention on a regular basis and when they do I usually say there is a difference between logged hours and flying hours.
I have one acquaintance in particular like this who has on three occasions with me literally panicked over nothing other than getting slightly out of his comfort zone.

[Whopity]

The CAA used to have a large sign outside saying:
SAFETY IS NO ACCIDENT"

They have removed it, so clearly they no longer think its's true, or perhaps it no longer portrays Mr Haines's image of a Lean, Efficient, Corporate Quango

[ChickenHouse]

"Experience with no accidents" does mean nothing, except "lucky pilot". The opposite you have to question why. Incidents happen often, accidents happen less often, but from the number of entries you cannot distinguish "pilot is careless" from "pilot lacked luck". "No accident" usually means "no accident, yet" and not "safe", but "safe, until". If we could predict the next accident and would be able to justify wether an experience from a former accident is of help or not, we would approach god-like knowledge. But, we can only speculate.

[patowalker]

My old man always said: "You haven't learnt to ride a horse until you have fallen off one."

[darkroomsource]

All valid points.
The hard part though, is to know the difference between the pilot who has had no incidents because he's been fortunate, and the pilot who has had no incidents because he has learned from other people's mistakes.
And, to know the difference between the pilot who's had a few incidents and learned from them, and the pilot who's had a few incidents and thinks s/he's invincible.

[PA28181]

How do you think the insurance companies would view the risk of insuring a pilot who has had a few recorded and in the public domain incidents/accidents and the pilot who has never had one?

[ChickenHouse]

How do you think the insurance companies would view the risk of insuring a pilot who has had a few recorded and in the public domain incidents/accidents and the pilot who has never had one?
I tend to welcome such an approach, as insurances have to document why they take decisions in calculating risks. Whenever they work on this, they have to collect statistics and do some math on it. If this exists, we are enabled to discuss facts (or shoot at opinions only). But, right now I don't know of such statistics.

[misterling]

The majority of aircraft accidents occur because the pilot has placed himself in a situation where an accident is more likely to occur.
I would always prefer to fly with the person who has used his flying experience to avoid such situations and has therefore never had an accident.

[PA28181]

I think it has been mentioned already, but there can be a case of "bad luck" when an incident is no fault of the pilot, but an unforeseen mechanical failure resulting in bent metal or pilot.

[ChickenHouse]

@PA28181: what in the world is "an unforeseen mechanical failure resulting in bent pilot"? Bent metal I get, but the whole pilot?

[PA28181]

I think you are finding a small colloquial language difficulty here "Chickenhouse"

[thing]

Surely a wise man learns not from his own mistakes but the mistakes of others? Thus preventing him from making the same mistake him/herself?

I've made some non costly mistakes, we all day everyday whatever we are doing. I was flying an Arrow yesterday on my own and thought I would try a couple of stalls on the way as I wasn't in a rush. HASELL checks completed I tried a clean power off stall first. There goes the warning horn, bit fast I thought at 80 kts but yoke forward, ball in middle, horn still blaring. Arrow by now making like an arrow, bit more power, horn goes off, recover having lost about 500'. Most unusual I thought. Tried a gear/flaps down with power stall. ASI down to around 50 kts, yoke hard back, there goes the horn, wings get confused, yoke forward slightly and instant recovery....then the penny dropped and I flew on feeling like a clot...:\. Made note to self...

[Rod1]

The pilot who has handled several incidents which were beyond his control to prevent and prevented them becoming accidents is always a better pilot (or very lucky).

Rod1

[PA28181]

which were beyond his control

Sorry, have to be pedantic here. If said pilot survived and managed it was hardly "beyond his control"

[enq]

Like most on here I've had a few little incidents from which I've learned but nothing that caused damage. Also like most on here I regularly practice & plan for engine failures at various stages of flight but have no idea how I'll react in reality if it occurs so the best I can hope for is muscle memory & training.

I do wonder in ignorance if there are any decent sim machines out there for typical GA aircraft that don't cost as much to use as the real aircraft - I'd certainly pay half aircraft hire rate to use a sim that can deliver random failures providing it's a fully enclosed cabin machine giving reasonable G force feedback, faithful landscape modelling & of course flight physics.

Having a drama student in the back doing a scared passenger routine for minimum wage might work to enhance the realism.

In the meantime I'm going to stick to drills, AAIB etc reports, risk aversion & thorough pre flights & vitals & as stated below, appreciation of the changes to the performance envelope as configuration & / or attitude changes.

[Rod1]

"Sorry, have to be pedantic here. If said pilot survived and managed it was hardly "beyond his control" "

OK lets take an example;

Pilot takes off with what appeared to be a fully serviceable aircraft. At 400ft the crank fails and the engine stops. The pilot had no control over the failure which is an incident at that point. He then makes a perfect forced landing and has avoided the incident becoming an accident. He is now a better pilot than he was because he has handled the emergency well.

Rod1

[PA28181]

Ok I'll go along with that interpretation. As my post saying "unforeseen mechanical failure" you can't always blame the pilot for incidents like this (unless he put's the wrong fuel in) but that is another thread.

I read your post in the same vein as the saying "he escaped from certain death" no he didn't it wasn't certain:O

[First_Principal]

Like a lot of things I think there's possibly an 'optimum' number of incidents, from which one can learn, however I'm less sure about accidents...

To my mind it's just like a normal bell curve - those at the upper end of the spectra, and those at the lower are people to examine for various [differing] reasons.

What could be interesting is to see if there's any correlation between the number of incidents v accidents for individuals. Some empirical data along these lines might then give some credence to some of the theories presented here...

FP.

[westhawk]

I tend not to find any credence in the idea that a past accident makes someone more likely to have problems in the future unless the cause of that accident can be traced to carelessness, incapacity or neglect. Even then a pattern of behavior would be more indicative of that person being a higher "risk".

Even though I've been fortunate (and careful too) enough not to have had any accidents, incidents or violations myself, it still bugs me every time I see this listed as a requirement in pilot job postings. If it said "no at fault accidents" I don't think I'd give it a second thought. Just laziness or ignorance on the part of insurers and employers perhaps? After all, Sully and Skiles have an accident on their records. Not only would I ride in the back of either of their airplanes, I'd hire or insure them too!

westhawk

[abgd]

Another way of looking at it:

There's a feeling that airline pilots who are also sports pilots may well deal with emergencies better than those who are not. Sullenberger would be a good example.

But accidents are orders of magnitude more common in small aircraft. Given 'no-accident' stipulations, a rational airline pilot should therefore give up sports-aircraft flying in order to reduce the risks of losing his/her career.

Is this to the benefit of airline safety?

[PA28181]

It means that death would certainly have resulted but for an intervening act by the person who would otherwise have died, by someone else or, occasionally, by something else.

You can read it how ever you like, I'll stick with my view, thanks.

[semmern]

The majority of aircraft accidents occur because the pilot has placed himself in a situation where an accident is more likely to occur.
I would always prefer to fly with the person who has used his flying experience to avoid such situations and has therefore never had an accident.

What's that old saying.. A good pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid having to use his superior skill.

;)