Human Error in Aviation Accidents
The Original Whirly
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Belper, Derbyshire, UK
Posts: 4,326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck,
Of course you're right. BUT we are all trained to do that, we do it, and still accidents happen, caused by the factors we're talking about, sometimes with very experienced people. Maybe there was never any place for them in aviation. But if that's so, how do you identify the people who shouldn't be flying, who might have that accident years and years down the line? And most people learn from ONE mistake, but sometimes that one is catastrophic and therefore too many. People are human, not machines; they sometimes make mistakes. You know that...I know you do.
WHY are so many people here saying things can't change? WHY are you so defeatist? We have one language for radio communications; OK, the French ignore it sometimes, but most of the time it works. Aviation HAS changed over the years, in many ways. So why not in some relatively minor ways that might make for safety?
Of course you're right. BUT we are all trained to do that, we do it, and still accidents happen, caused by the factors we're talking about, sometimes with very experienced people. Maybe there was never any place for them in aviation. But if that's so, how do you identify the people who shouldn't be flying, who might have that accident years and years down the line? And most people learn from ONE mistake, but sometimes that one is catastrophic and therefore too many. People are human, not machines; they sometimes make mistakes. You know that...I know you do.
WHY are so many people here saying things can't change? WHY are you so defeatist? We have one language for radio communications; OK, the French ignore it sometimes, but most of the time it works. Aviation HAS changed over the years, in many ways. So why not in some relatively minor ways that might make for safety?
I'd suggest that there are four brackets here:-
- Things that should be standardised and fixed in the name of safety. To pick one example, the colour markings on an ASI to show limitations, another would be the standard "T" instrument layout in IFR equipped aeroplanes.
- Things that really should be changed in the name of safety. This is difficult because opinions may differ but I'll offer a couple of suggestion - tank transfer systems that allow you to inadvertently select "off" without a positive separate action, retractable gear aeroplanes that allow you to select full flaps but not gear-down without warning you, springy seats that amplify crash loads onto the pilots spine, aircraft that can too-easily be loaded out of CG limits.
- Things that may be changed, but only with great care and clear documentation for pilots - for example the way engines are mechanised (look at the difference between a Lycoming and a Rotax-914 to show how things can be improved - a single lever power control or automatic carb heat have much going for them but pilots need to be educated in their use). Another might be used of an AoA indicator for approach conditions / low-speed warning, etc.
- Things that may be freely changed so long as good safety practices are followed throughout - for example construction materials.
Surely the important question is how we determine what falls into which category?
G
- Things that should be standardised and fixed in the name of safety. To pick one example, the colour markings on an ASI to show limitations, another would be the standard "T" instrument layout in IFR equipped aeroplanes.
- Things that really should be changed in the name of safety. This is difficult because opinions may differ but I'll offer a couple of suggestion - tank transfer systems that allow you to inadvertently select "off" without a positive separate action, retractable gear aeroplanes that allow you to select full flaps but not gear-down without warning you, springy seats that amplify crash loads onto the pilots spine, aircraft that can too-easily be loaded out of CG limits.
- Things that may be changed, but only with great care and clear documentation for pilots - for example the way engines are mechanised (look at the difference between a Lycoming and a Rotax-914 to show how things can be improved - a single lever power control or automatic carb heat have much going for them but pilots need to be educated in their use). Another might be used of an AoA indicator for approach conditions / low-speed warning, etc.
- Things that may be freely changed so long as good safety practices are followed throughout - for example construction materials.
Surely the important question is how we determine what falls into which category?
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 7th Sep 2003 at 19:43.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: europe
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what ever is changed in the name of standardisation, there will be many pilots who will have to relearn, with the inevitable lapses.
I am not sure if the cost of changing to metric in the UK was measurable but I am sure it cost lots of noughts after the digits.
I am not sure if the cost of changing to metric in the UK was measurable but I am sure it cost lots of noughts after the digits.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver Island
Posts: 2,517
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whirley:
You are correct, everyone makes mistakes and the best insurance we have to try and limit the number of mistakes is proper training and recurrent training.
Unfortunately we will all screw up in one way or another, however the very important items such as running out of fuel is preventable by taking the time and confirming that you do in fact have sufficient fuel before you even pick it up into the hover.
Changes in Aviation are limited by two main problems, bureaucrats who are resistant to any thought process and money.
Speaking of different information in the Aviation field the one that always gives me problems is the IOAO visibility given in meters in the METARS, I learned in miles and knots and the mental picture imagining the runway vis in meters always makes me stop and carefully examine what I am reading.
Chuck
You are correct, everyone makes mistakes and the best insurance we have to try and limit the number of mistakes is proper training and recurrent training.
Unfortunately we will all screw up in one way or another, however the very important items such as running out of fuel is preventable by taking the time and confirming that you do in fact have sufficient fuel before you even pick it up into the hover.
Changes in Aviation are limited by two main problems, bureaucrats who are resistant to any thought process and money.
Speaking of different information in the Aviation field the one that always gives me problems is the IOAO visibility given in meters in the METARS, I learned in miles and knots and the mental picture imagining the runway vis in meters always makes me stop and carefully examine what I am reading.
Chuck
