Nil accident history vs proneness to accidents

[Boomerang]

I have noticed that some companies require a Nil Accident history as a prerequisite for selection.

Can anyone tell me if there is any link between someone who has already had an accident and their accident proneness and someone who is accident free?

I.e. probability (having another accident given that they have already had one) compared to probability (having an accident in future given they have not had one)

[Agaricus bisporus]

Equally as employee it is of great importance to ask the same question about your furure employer. Having worked for one who had a zero history and a 100% probability it is not a situation I want to ever see again.

[Bus429]

I may be taking this thread off course but there is a wealth of Human Factors/CRM info now available, much of it free and on the web. The UK CAA, the FAA, NASA and many others have published a great deal. (Strange that NASA, however, has had serious human factors shortcomings with the Space Shuttle program contributing to the tragic consequences of which we are all too aware).
One factor mentioned in some is the element of comfort derived by some organisations from never having had a major incident. There is a danger that the "it ain't broke, so we won't fix it" attitude will prevent some organisations from seeing their problems. I believe the report in to the Qantas 747 incident at BKK a few years ago revealed a number of operational shortcomings that only manifested themselves during the incident.

[zalt]

Boomerang - From an oil inductry helicopter contract viewpoint such a policy could force you to a small, but dangerous, operator who has just not had the chance to have an accident, rather than a big established operator who is just unlucky eough to have had a recent accident. It also makes it difficult to judge new operators due to a lack of track record.

The same applies when trying to specify types with zero/near zero accident rates. Manufacturers will also claim their new products are safer because they are newer and ignore the usual (hopefully only teething but sometimes fatal) problems that all new types get.

IMHO the only way is to look really closely at the operator (or the type).

[Ralph the Bong]

Some of the Asian carriers will not employ people who have had an accident simply out of superstition..:eek: It doesnt matter if it was your fault or not.

[The Skylord]

A certain Asian carrier had a Flight Safety Manager who has been involved in two crashes of DC3s on the basis that he knew more about flight safety!

[SydGirl]

Boomerang I have no idea what is the answer to your question (sorry!) but would be interested to hear a true answer.

I find it absurd that a company would eliminate any person from the selection process due to having been in an accident. Does this mean people like Al Haynes, Denny Fitch and others who survived accidents that were either not their fault or uncontrollable errors would be eliminated from the selection process?

Companies that do engage in this method of immediate elimination would be doing themselves out of some excellent pilots, and perhaps need to engage themselves in some reading about Professor Reason's theories on chain of events leading to an accident.

Just my thoughts. Merry Christmas all.
SG
:}