Centaurus
25th Oct 2005, 23:46
Media Quote:
US Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) president Duane Woerth has accused the
US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of overlooking human-factors
principles during the investigation of aviation accidents.
In a letter to NTSB acting chairman Mark Rosenker, Woerth urges deeper
consideration from the NTSB when it cites human error as a contributing
factor in crashes, accusing the agency of appearing to “favour the easy
route of citing ‘crew error’ and not delving further. Since the vast
majority of aviation accidents are the result of many factors, it is
shortsighted and troubling to simply say, in effect, ‘the flightcrew
failed to prevent the accident’,” says Woerth.
The NTSB on 8 September concluded that pilot error contributed to the 9 May,
2004 crash-landing of an American Eagle/Executive Airlines ATR 72 in San
Juan, Puerto Rico. The report says the captain “failed to execute proper
techniques to recover from the bounced landings” and failed to execute a
go-around
............................................................ ....................................
My comment:
Where does the buck stop? Time and again a pilot stuffs up through carelessness, incompetence or sheer overconfidence. The current trend is never to blame the pilot, but to sheet the blame on every other agency but the pilot himself. Whether the pundits like it or not, the term Pilot Error is still a completely valid description of the cause of many accidents.
In the case above, the pilot stuffs up a landing. In his ab initio training no doubt thousands of hours earlier, he would have been taught how to recover from a bounced landing otherwise no competent instructor would have sent him solo.
But even if by chance he had been sent solo without a check on his bounced landing procedure, he should have read many paragraphs on the subject in his study manuals. The basic bounced landing procedure is the same for practically all aircraft. There is no excuse for not reading up on these manoeuvres.
As a former military pilot back in the early Fifties, we were taught to take responsibility for our actions. If you were caught low flying against orders, you were punished and if necessary, scrubbed. You could not use the excuse that your flight commander never actually said you should not go low flying. In other words, bush lawyer excuses did not wear.
I would prefer to see a more honest and direct line of approach in accident reports. If the cause was a clear pilot error then say so - rather than lose the real cause among a flurry "systemic failure" buck passing down or up the line to the Commander-in-Chief. Of course, there are exceptions.
US Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) president Duane Woerth has accused the
US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) of overlooking human-factors
principles during the investigation of aviation accidents.
In a letter to NTSB acting chairman Mark Rosenker, Woerth urges deeper
consideration from the NTSB when it cites human error as a contributing
factor in crashes, accusing the agency of appearing to “favour the easy
route of citing ‘crew error’ and not delving further. Since the vast
majority of aviation accidents are the result of many factors, it is
shortsighted and troubling to simply say, in effect, ‘the flightcrew
failed to prevent the accident’,” says Woerth.
The NTSB on 8 September concluded that pilot error contributed to the 9 May,
2004 crash-landing of an American Eagle/Executive Airlines ATR 72 in San
Juan, Puerto Rico. The report says the captain “failed to execute proper
techniques to recover from the bounced landings” and failed to execute a
go-around
............................................................ ....................................
My comment:
Where does the buck stop? Time and again a pilot stuffs up through carelessness, incompetence or sheer overconfidence. The current trend is never to blame the pilot, but to sheet the blame on every other agency but the pilot himself. Whether the pundits like it or not, the term Pilot Error is still a completely valid description of the cause of many accidents.
In the case above, the pilot stuffs up a landing. In his ab initio training no doubt thousands of hours earlier, he would have been taught how to recover from a bounced landing otherwise no competent instructor would have sent him solo.
But even if by chance he had been sent solo without a check on his bounced landing procedure, he should have read many paragraphs on the subject in his study manuals. The basic bounced landing procedure is the same for practically all aircraft. There is no excuse for not reading up on these manoeuvres.
As a former military pilot back in the early Fifties, we were taught to take responsibility for our actions. If you were caught low flying against orders, you were punished and if necessary, scrubbed. You could not use the excuse that your flight commander never actually said you should not go low flying. In other words, bush lawyer excuses did not wear.
I would prefer to see a more honest and direct line of approach in accident reports. If the cause was a clear pilot error then say so - rather than lose the real cause among a flurry "systemic failure" buck passing down or up the line to the Commander-in-Chief. Of course, there are exceptions.