Bjorn,
Respectfully, I disagree with your statement that
"Pilot error" is a subset of "human error". There is no other distinction between the two terms.
Do you suggest it is an acceptable term to replace 'human error' provided that the error is committed by someone who is a pilot?
Human error is a consequence of being human - only humans can truly make such errors, and to do so requires that the entity committing the error is human.
Ergo, pilot error must be a consequence of being a pilot.
Take a crop-sprayer who spends all day flying at very low height over fields with occasional fences and gates, for which he pulls up. At the end of the day, he gets into his car to drive home. As he approaches a gate across the road, he pulls back on the steering wheel. He realises his error too late, and the car hits the gate.
That is 'pilot error': an error committed exclusively because the person committing it is a pilot and acted as a pilot when presented with a familiar cue.
I genuinely struggle to think of another case of 'pilot error' - perhaps someone else can bring one to the forum?
I get heartily upset when I see aviation professionals use this hackneyed and unhelpful expression; to do so simply fuels the fires of the media and manufacturers. I get equally upset when I read elsewhere
Pilots safer than ever - Study
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=306097
The
system provides safety or allows opportunities for accidents and incidents, pilots, engineers, air traffic controllers, designers, and most crucially of all, managers and those exercising financial muscle, influence the system, and to examine elements of it in such isolation, especially when doing so involves crediting 'pilot error' with academic recognition, is to miss the point.