Playing It Safer

[Fantome]

THIS (edited) SUBMISSION WAS POSTED ON THE AVCANADA WEBSITE ON 3rd DECEMBER 2008 BY HOLY MAGENTA IN RESPONSE TO A THREAD TRIGGERED BY FATAL ACCIDENTS THAT OCCURRED TO PACIFIC COASTAL AIRLINES AIRCRAFT.

People can try to place blame from now to the end of eternity, but the nature of this industry is such that all parties contribute to the risks. The amount of influence is always in flux. What I'm saying is there are so many variables in this line of work, you will never fully "safe-proof" everything.

Take weather related accidents or incidents. Anyone who deals with the weather knows that just when you think you have the region figured out, when you know the subtle patterns, something unforeseen happens. Most aviation forecasts tend to be pessimistic due to liability. Chances are it will be better than predicted, but when it isn't, you may find yourself testing the margins.

Depending upon the company you work for and it’s economics, they may or may not be pressuring you. Same with the clients. Same with those pilots who are walking the tight rope of experience, common sense, and dare I say, bravado. Everyone wants to do a good job. Everyone wants to succeed. But there is never a concrete limit. It can change from individual to individual or situationally. Even AMEs, folk that are always impressing me, make mistakes. We have to accept that in some areas, aviation is affected by limitless variables.

Yes, think safety. Yes, put limits. But never presume that you are invincible. Better pilots than me have lost their lives because of events gone wrong. Conversely, I've seen the worst pilots walk away from craziness smelling like roses. I can't explain it, or understand it, but I have to acknowledge it and be vigilant.

If you don't like it, take a boat, train or automobile. Or a horse and buggy! But know that life has inherent risk. And know that all the mitigation and litigation in the world will not ultimately protect everyone.

I mean no disrespect to the folks in these unfortunate accidents. Condolences to them and their families, and all who are affected. I am just saying playing the blame game doesn't solve a thing because when you break it down we are all guilty to some degree. Sooner or later.

............................................................ ............................................................ ..........

[Miles Gustaph]

It’s a shame that the rest of the thread that lead to this submission isn’t here in order to give this a little more of a context.

I would like to make two points here though, the first, I whole heartedly disagree with the idea that there shouldn’t be concrete limits, I’m sorry but human factors, particularly the reason model (Swiss cheese with holes that line up), and the “iceberg” models consistently show that if the end user/operator, particularly engineers or pilots regard the limits as flexible there is a far higher proportion of accidents or incidents.

The second point is that while there is a public desire for blame, or more correctly financial remuneration for an accident or death, the aviation industry has an obligation not to blame but to find out what happened… and blame is such a …well immature approach, as, again from the Reason model, a single persons actions causing an aircraft accident, short of an act of terrorism or serious negligence is highly improbable.

Interesting thread though

[Centaurus]

In Australia at least, the official accident reports never blame anyone although they may imply. While US regs require a "most probable cause" to be published by the NTSB, this term is not in Australian investigations. In its place are "Significant Factors". And so you find someone kills himself in a light aircraft by hitting power lines while beating up his home and showing off.

Pilot Error? Of course it was. And obviously a fatal one at that. But this will never appear in print because it is politically incorrect nowadays to blame the pilot. The Significant Factors of this accident would be: The weather was windy...the power lines weren't there the last time he beat up his house 12 months ago. The pilot was not qualified to fly below 500 ft and so contravened the Regs. Thus it is left to the reader to form his own opinion if the pilot was foolish and paid for it with his life. But "pilot error?" Never heard of the word, mate...