|
Pilots are getting safer
www.smh.com.au 28/12/07
Pilots now less likely to cause an accident December 28, 2007 - 11:23AM A new study has found that you're less likely to be involved in a aircraft mishap due to pilot error than two decades ago.The study, conducted by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the United States, found that the proportion of mishaps involving pilot error over a 20 year period had reduced by 40 per cent.The researchers attribute the decline to better training and improvements in technology that aid pilot decision making. "A 40 per cent decline in pilot error-related mishaps is very impressive," lead author and John Hopkins University professor, Susan P Baker, said. "Trends indicate that great progress has been made to improve the decision making of pilots and coordination between the aircraft's crew members." The study, which was published in the journal Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine, examined 558 airline mishaps between 1983 and 2002.Other key findings included, mishaps relating to bad weather dropped 76 per cent, mishandling of wind or runway conditions declined 78 per cent, and accidents caused by poor crew interaction declined 68 per cent. It found the most common time for pilot error was during taxiing, takeoff, final approach and landing of the aircraft.Despite this, the study revealed an increase in the number of mishaps involving errors by air traffic control or ground crews.It also revealed a jump in the number of mishaps occurring when the aircraft was standing still or being pushed back from the gate, more than doubling from a rate of 2.5 to 6 mishaps per 10 million flights. |
It would be interesting to examine these results on the basis that pilots tended to be blamed more often in the good old days. All accidents have a multitude of causes. To pick out pilot error was always an over simplification of a complex event.
|
Investigative processes have improved to the extent the old "pilot error" is seldom heard these days. And the operation of a large air transport aircraft has been simplified, with greater safety margins and implementation of CRM and new training techniques would result in fewer pilot operational errors.
|
Hmmmm.............
According to the Benjamin Disraeli phrase that was 'attributed' to Mark Twain, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. I wonder which category of lies....................err sorry.........ummmmm..............'research'............that this 'new study' was based upon................???????? :} The only positive thing I'd reckon that could have come out of this new 'research' would be that there were no new errors made by pilots that were able to be identified. That's because we'd previously discovered all the ones that you can make! :} |
I'd say it probably has a little to do with the growing use of CRM/TEM, but you're still more likely to crash on the way to the airport than the plane you're catching is.
|
Pilot error v human error!...
there is a difference! |
Aargh well, I suppose it gives young aircraft some justification to say that we all deserve pay cuts :bored:.
|
This topic is already running on the main forum, I had better not post a wind up here as well. ;)
|
Go on airsupport I need a good laugh! Amos2 very true, hey that rhymes.:p
|
If you insist ;), however I am sure you have heard it before, and I have had enough agro here already today, so remember YOU asked for it. :rolleyes:
There are only two things required to fly a modern airliner: a pilot and a dog. It's the pilot's job to feed the dog. It's the dog's job to bite the pilot if he touches anything in the cockpit. |
Was interested to hear the other day that hot air balloons are more dangerous than motorcycles.
|
a photo of the pilot and dog to which airsupport refers!
airsupport, nice line, but royalties clearly go to Pinkus Dickus, post #23, here:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=304994&page=2 As long as the pilot, or dog (now even I'm confused:}) looks like this (post#21 on above thread), i'm sure the passengers won't really care for statistics! Ahhh, enjoyed the chuckle.;) |
That isn't actually the one I meant, but that one is better. :ok:
|
I'm not a monkey or umhhh..
http://www.smh.com.au/news/news/pilo...778666693.html
I didn't see this coming. Although not sure if this is good news or bad or just not? |
...............'airsupport' one day we won't even need a pilot never lone a dog up front !!!...................pilots will be made redundant but the dog on the other hand could go onto other things. For Eg. seeing as the dog has training to not let the pilot touch anything in the cockpit perhaps the dog could be taken home by the likes of GD so as to keep an eye on his behavour. Like when he (GD) reaches for that 'red pen' in order to slash more T&C's off the drones/plebs the dog can bite him like he used to do to the pilots !!:}...............see a dog really is a mans best friend, although it's cruelity to animals to make him bite 'them' !:}
All tongue in cheek of course CW:) |
hmmm gotta wonder why wages haven't moved in 20 years
|
As a old bloke, with 50 years experience, flying the Tiger Moth to a 747/300, I am delighted to see we are getting better. In my years of flying obviously things have changed a lot in flt deck management, communication and of course the A/C themselves, however one thing has not changed and that is our total reliance on good engineers. It does not matter how bloody good you are, you are still up the creek with a u/s A/C especially if airborne. So my point is, we can get better all we like, but the current erosion of engineers especially in QF, and the breakup of what was one of the finest engineering outfits in the world, all in the name of the mighty dollar, concerns me greatly. Aviation in Australia if it is to go forward, needs top class engineers and pilots, who are not under the control of some D$@#head beancounter, who wouldn't know a APU from a camels A$#@. The only advantage we old blokes had over you, is that the airlines were run by management pilots and engineers, I understand that is not practical today, but there should be at least a couple of senior pilots and engineers included at each board meeting, to put the case of safety and training over the mighty $$$$$$.(I wish)!!:ugh:I understand I am preaching to the converted here, but if there ever is a smoking black hole, it won't be management blamed, it will be the poor bloody driver or engineer when the witch hunt starts.
|
'airsupport' one day we won't even need a pilot never lone a dog up front !!!................... One time when I was at Boeing, more than 25 years ago now, they said they had the technology then to remove Pilots as we know them from the flight deck. They would have instead one (or maybe two) computer technicians on the flight deck, but they knew even back then that the Public would not accept it. Maybe one day. |
I've seen a video of a B777 flying from Heathrow to JFK (or vice versa, forget which) without the pilots touching the control columns or throttles once. The entire flight conducted on autopilot.
Does this mean the aircraft flies itself and the pilots were redundant? Depends who you ask - an airline manager, or someone who knows something about aviation. |
It found the most common time for pilot error was during taxiing, takeoff, final approach and landing of the aircraft. Sorry I'm feeling a little cynical. Arrr? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:34. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.