Originally Posted by
Lead Balloon
Assuming the "human" part of your "human/pilot error" term is confined to pilots, that's around 20/30 percent of aviation incident/accidents being down to other than pilot error. In my book, that percentage does not equal "very rare". Or do you include e.g. Air Traffic Controllers and aircraft maintainers in the "human error"?
But what is your definition of "mechanical failures"? It is "very rare" for e.g. an aircraft's wings to fall off an aircraft flown below Vne and within the G loading limits etc. That kind of "mechanical failure" is very rare.
But there are plenty of mechanical things that don't work properly or are unreliable and fail to work because of human error - in the case of aircraft, maintenance error. And not all manufacturing processes are perfect.
I added human to cover all aspects not just pilot and could of worded better, mechanical failures that lead to loss of airframes are extremely rare.
Does your 20/30 percent include combination mechanical plus human error witch lead to loss of airframe? witch i believe usually is the case in accidents. ( swiss cheese)
Unsure how it's categorised but if 30 percent of accidents are pilot error alone that seems high to me and gets me back to the point of why people are quick to judge pilots in accidents before anything els.
Apart from publicly saying things like it looks intentional based on little data I can't see any harm coming out of discussions covering pilot errors in accidents only good, even to family's that have lost loved ones at the end of the day people's theories are usually proven right or wrong at some point.
WuW