Does "experience with no accidents" mean a pilot is "safe"
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Essex, Innit
Age: 55
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
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
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
I read your post in the same vein as the saying "he escaped from certain death" no he didn't it wasn't certain
Bell curve.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
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?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: LONDON
Posts: 366
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Utterly insignificant little blue-green planet, unregarded yellow sun, unfashionable end, western spiral arm, Milky Way
Age: 38
Posts: 276
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
