Safety: Does attitude count for more than experience?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety: Does attitude count for more than experience?
There is an interesting article in Flying this month.
The article examines the safety record of private pilots in the US.
In spite of the various initiatives of the FAA (and doubtless other regulatory authorities which have followed a similiar path) there has been little improvement in the flight safety of private pilots whereas there has been a marked improvement in CAT flight safety.
We might all assume that advanced training, experience, perhaps an instrument rating etc all contribute to making us a safer pilot. Certainly there is some evidence that the safety record in the Cirrus has improved as a result of insurance companies insisting on more training in the States.
The largest insurance company in the States (which only insurers private pilots and the lighter end of the market) would seem to have found otherwise.
It would seem in terms of avoiding fatal accidents (and the most serious) attitude is the most important factor; having the right attitude does not seem to stem (at least directly) from training, experience, etc.
It would seem that some of us are just very good at handling "emergencies". We are able to prioritise, ignore distractions, and make informed decisions. Others, in spite of 1,000 of hours, are not.
Interestingly "showing off" would also seem to be a significant contributor to accidents - more happen when there are passengers aboard, than when there are not.
Further on in the same edition there is a good analysis of the Colgan 3407 tragedy - which interestingly may illustrate some of these features where even a commercial pilot has failed to react "well" in an emergency situation.
YouTube - Colgan Flight 3407 NTSB Animation of Buffalo Accident Q400
In this instance the pilot was flying a coupled approach; because there was a very small amount of ice build the autopilot had been triggered to disengage at a slightly higher speed than normal. The autopilot duly disengaged, took the pilot unexpectedly, who then reacted to the stick shaker by pulling the nose up. Sadly the aircraft stalled. The accident would seem to be entirely attributable to a mis handled stall not occasioned by any mechanical defect. Depsite the commanders considerable flight hours there was evidence that he was not all that good at reacting under the pressure of an unexpected sequence of events.
Maybe a interesting debate will follow for the bank holiday.
The article examines the safety record of private pilots in the US.
In spite of the various initiatives of the FAA (and doubtless other regulatory authorities which have followed a similiar path) there has been little improvement in the flight safety of private pilots whereas there has been a marked improvement in CAT flight safety.
We might all assume that advanced training, experience, perhaps an instrument rating etc all contribute to making us a safer pilot. Certainly there is some evidence that the safety record in the Cirrus has improved as a result of insurance companies insisting on more training in the States.
The largest insurance company in the States (which only insurers private pilots and the lighter end of the market) would seem to have found otherwise.
It would seem in terms of avoiding fatal accidents (and the most serious) attitude is the most important factor; having the right attitude does not seem to stem (at least directly) from training, experience, etc.
It would seem that some of us are just very good at handling "emergencies". We are able to prioritise, ignore distractions, and make informed decisions. Others, in spite of 1,000 of hours, are not.
Interestingly "showing off" would also seem to be a significant contributor to accidents - more happen when there are passengers aboard, than when there are not.
Further on in the same edition there is a good analysis of the Colgan 3407 tragedy - which interestingly may illustrate some of these features where even a commercial pilot has failed to react "well" in an emergency situation.
YouTube - Colgan Flight 3407 NTSB Animation of Buffalo Accident Q400
In this instance the pilot was flying a coupled approach; because there was a very small amount of ice build the autopilot had been triggered to disengage at a slightly higher speed than normal. The autopilot duly disengaged, took the pilot unexpectedly, who then reacted to the stick shaker by pulling the nose up. Sadly the aircraft stalled. The accident would seem to be entirely attributable to a mis handled stall not occasioned by any mechanical defect. Depsite the commanders considerable flight hours there was evidence that he was not all that good at reacting under the pressure of an unexpected sequence of events.
Maybe a interesting debate will follow for the bank holiday.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 29th May 2010 at 12:40.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Essex
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That would certainly be in line with current thinking in the commercial flying world.
I recently attended an aviation safety conference aimed primarily at CAT and Aerial work, which was looking at what needed to be done to further improve safety.
Professionalism in the cockpit was the catchphrase, and was set out by many speakers as; if you always aim to fly as well as you possibly can, your skills remain sharp for that one time you really, really need them to be. If you fly sloppily because 'it doesn't really matter' on a routine flight, then your finer skills atrophy and aren't there to call upon when it really counts.
Although this was aimed commercial flying, I have taken this to heart for my own leisure flying, as it not only makes sense but also mirrors what my instructor always tried to drum into us.
I recently attended an aviation safety conference aimed primarily at CAT and Aerial work, which was looking at what needed to be done to further improve safety.
Professionalism in the cockpit was the catchphrase, and was set out by many speakers as; if you always aim to fly as well as you possibly can, your skills remain sharp for that one time you really, really need them to be. If you fly sloppily because 'it doesn't really matter' on a routine flight, then your finer skills atrophy and aren't there to call upon when it really counts.
Although this was aimed commercial flying, I have taken this to heart for my own leisure flying, as it not only makes sense but also mirrors what my instructor always tried to drum into us.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure this is true. Once a cowboy - always a cowboy. People don't change - except temporarily to make a good impression on somebody.
But the training is also lacking. Private pilot training doesn't deal with the broader "management" issues. You sit the exams, you fly the hours, and anybody who doesn't kill the instructor will eventually get a PPL. They say "a license is a license to learn, young man, now go away, I have a new customer waiting"
Short of getting clued-up by a lot of internet activity, and meeting up with other pilots (some of whom will be good and some will also be cowboys), one has little opportunity to drag oneself beyond the PPL sausage machine.
Edit: just found that article. It basically says that a study found that pilots were in two distinct groups, grouped by some fairly basic psychology. Also their ratings and total time did not make much difference to their chances of getting killed, though experience did make a difference to their chances of having minor prangs.
However I suspect that as always with these things the overall picture is hiding stuff like a higher rated pilot flying more complex mission profiles, etc.
But the training is also lacking. Private pilot training doesn't deal with the broader "management" issues. You sit the exams, you fly the hours, and anybody who doesn't kill the instructor will eventually get a PPL. They say "a license is a license to learn, young man, now go away, I have a new customer waiting"
Short of getting clued-up by a lot of internet activity, and meeting up with other pilots (some of whom will be good and some will also be cowboys), one has little opportunity to drag oneself beyond the PPL sausage machine.
Edit: just found that article. It basically says that a study found that pilots were in two distinct groups, grouped by some fairly basic psychology. Also their ratings and total time did not make much difference to their chances of getting killed, though experience did make a difference to their chances of having minor prangs.
However I suspect that as always with these things the overall picture is hiding stuff like a higher rated pilot flying more complex mission profiles, etc.
Last edited by IO540; 29th May 2010 at 20:50.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Aberdeen
Posts: 1,234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In what way?
State the blindingly obvious and what do you want - applause?
Are we all supposed to coo in admiration?
Check out posters from world war one, remember the 'old bold pilots' stuff. Anyone of any maturity will understand that people's attitiude is key to their performance in many ways.
Think of many of the so-called 'heroes' where there is a considerable undercurrent of negative comment in terms of their inability to relate to authority, colleagues, publicity etc...
Leopeards do not change their spots. Equally risk taking is unlikely to be compensated by raw skill. Read up on Bud Holland in the USAF, none of this is in any way new.
State the blindingly obvious and what do you want - applause?
Are we all supposed to coo in admiration?
Check out posters from world war one, remember the 'old bold pilots' stuff. Anyone of any maturity will understand that people's attitiude is key to their performance in many ways.
Think of many of the so-called 'heroes' where there is a considerable undercurrent of negative comment in terms of their inability to relate to authority, colleagues, publicity etc...
Leopeards do not change their spots. Equally risk taking is unlikely to be compensated by raw skill. Read up on Bud Holland in the USAF, none of this is in any way new.
Moderator
Two thoughts have rolled around my mind while I thought about this:
"You start out your career in aviation with a full bag of luck, and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the bag of experience, before you empty the bag of luck".
The other is the subject which comes up in discussion about our kids; what's the balance between "nurture and nature"?
I any life pursuit, there are people who are "naturals" at it, and those who struggle, and are eventually adequate. In the course of objective, and non-predjudiced evaluation, the naturals and the adequate will look virtually the same in their performance. Only a deeper examination of their skills may show the differences, and for many reasons, that deeper evaluation may never occurr.
So even the "adequate" may find themselves comfortable in their skills, not thinking to continue to grow their abilities. This can be made worse by company training which is so focused, that the pilot learns only what they are being taught, to the apparent exclusion of their basic training.
Stalls come to mind. I have occasion to stall all kinds of planes, as a part of required evaluation of modifications. Often I fly alone, but for aircraft types which are new to me, or for which I am not type rated or insured, I will be accompanied by a "qualified" pilot. My challenge is that they are usually a "line pilot" whose job and training is to simply not stall that aircraft. But that's what we're there to do! Even after a briefing, I will find that he's pushing on the controls, while I'm pulling. "Am I feeling the plane, or you?" "Oh that's the plane, not me" as I see the while of skin between his thumb and forefinger.
So that pilot's attitude is generally right: Do as trained, do not stall planes. But, sometimes planes are to be stalled, so attitude should include, fly the test safely and properly. His experience is that stalling planes is bad, so avoid and prevent. The problem is that his experience should be good enough to comfortably stall and recover, when it is planned and expected, but he does not have that confidence. The antithisis of this, is the occasional pilot, who happily lets me do what I'm there to do, and then says "can I try that for practice while we're up here?". My answer is always "yes".
As in so many things in life, it is a balance. All attitude is going to get you killed for sure, 'cause you just can't get it right for lack of experience. Fortunately, you can't get a lot of experience, without getting some attitude along the way - both good and bad. Hopefully, training and mentoring will teach which is the attitude to retain, and which to never repeat!
Now, are the trainers up to the task?
During a flight test of a suspectedly non-conforming 172, I was required to take an instructor (club rules). "Ok, here's what I'm going to do.... you're welcomed to the ride, I won't really need any help with this, but feel free to ask, if there is something you would like clarified, or something you want to see." After determining that the plane was quite worthy, and having put it through all of it's paces, it was occurring to me that my crisp shirt, epaulette wearing guardian was actually still catching up to where we were in the sky at any given point. So after a brief straight and level, I delared the plane just fine, and asked would he like to see anything before we go back?
A roll please, this plane will roll, won't it?
"Um, No! Yes, this plane will roll perfectly well, but I'm not going to roll it, particualrly with you in it!
The poor fellow looked totaly dejected. I realized at that moment that he was a highly inexperienced pilot, who thought he saw, for a brief moment, an opportunity he would otherwise never have, to experience a roll, and would not get that experience. Is attitude problem, was that of even opening the door for me to do that, lest I try it! Worse, I demonstrate one, then off he goes to do more on his own, with too much attitude, and 'way to little experience!
I later learned that amoung the 20 or so instructors at that school, he was not only one of the seniors, but the school's safety officer!
Attitiude!
"You start out your career in aviation with a full bag of luck, and an empty bag of experience. The trick is to fill the bag of experience, before you empty the bag of luck".
The other is the subject which comes up in discussion about our kids; what's the balance between "nurture and nature"?
I any life pursuit, there are people who are "naturals" at it, and those who struggle, and are eventually adequate. In the course of objective, and non-predjudiced evaluation, the naturals and the adequate will look virtually the same in their performance. Only a deeper examination of their skills may show the differences, and for many reasons, that deeper evaluation may never occurr.
So even the "adequate" may find themselves comfortable in their skills, not thinking to continue to grow their abilities. This can be made worse by company training which is so focused, that the pilot learns only what they are being taught, to the apparent exclusion of their basic training.
Stalls come to mind. I have occasion to stall all kinds of planes, as a part of required evaluation of modifications. Often I fly alone, but for aircraft types which are new to me, or for which I am not type rated or insured, I will be accompanied by a "qualified" pilot. My challenge is that they are usually a "line pilot" whose job and training is to simply not stall that aircraft. But that's what we're there to do! Even after a briefing, I will find that he's pushing on the controls, while I'm pulling. "Am I feeling the plane, or you?" "Oh that's the plane, not me" as I see the while of skin between his thumb and forefinger.
So that pilot's attitude is generally right: Do as trained, do not stall planes. But, sometimes planes are to be stalled, so attitude should include, fly the test safely and properly. His experience is that stalling planes is bad, so avoid and prevent. The problem is that his experience should be good enough to comfortably stall and recover, when it is planned and expected, but he does not have that confidence. The antithisis of this, is the occasional pilot, who happily lets me do what I'm there to do, and then says "can I try that for practice while we're up here?". My answer is always "yes".
As in so many things in life, it is a balance. All attitude is going to get you killed for sure, 'cause you just can't get it right for lack of experience. Fortunately, you can't get a lot of experience, without getting some attitude along the way - both good and bad. Hopefully, training and mentoring will teach which is the attitude to retain, and which to never repeat!
Now, are the trainers up to the task?
During a flight test of a suspectedly non-conforming 172, I was required to take an instructor (club rules). "Ok, here's what I'm going to do.... you're welcomed to the ride, I won't really need any help with this, but feel free to ask, if there is something you would like clarified, or something you want to see." After determining that the plane was quite worthy, and having put it through all of it's paces, it was occurring to me that my crisp shirt, epaulette wearing guardian was actually still catching up to where we were in the sky at any given point. So after a brief straight and level, I delared the plane just fine, and asked would he like to see anything before we go back?
A roll please, this plane will roll, won't it?
"Um, No! Yes, this plane will roll perfectly well, but I'm not going to roll it, particualrly with you in it!
The poor fellow looked totaly dejected. I realized at that moment that he was a highly inexperienced pilot, who thought he saw, for a brief moment, an opportunity he would otherwise never have, to experience a roll, and would not get that experience. Is attitude problem, was that of even opening the door for me to do that, lest I try it! Worse, I demonstrate one, then off he goes to do more on his own, with too much attitude, and 'way to little experience!
I later learned that amoung the 20 or so instructors at that school, he was not only one of the seniors, but the school's safety officer!
Attitiude!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot Dar
This is a hard one so I would like to add another angle or call it a slight suspicion of mine
I have flown with pilots who are extremely methodical and detailed but go at one mental speed and appear unable to pick up their game if events require that.
I have also flown with pilots who are equally detailed and methodical but can also pick up their game when required and to whatever level that is required and they tend to be the best.
They seem to have very fast visual brains and are natural multi taskers.
In between that lot there are various combinations of the above.
I read an interesting article on how our brains worked and how we all have different talents and abilities.
Most of us are fine when all is running ok but it is when something starts to go wrong that the flaws appear.
It was explained like this. Imagine a computer which holds banks of memory.
Now think of the graphics card which also holds its own memory.
As we gain experience a lot of stuff is stowed away in the computer memory banks while the graphics card memory deals with all the instant and visual stuff.
Some of us have small amounts of memory on the graphics card and rely on our main memory in the computer.
Flash to much information too fast and the poor graphics card stutters and then freezes.
The guy lucky enough to have top of the range high memory cards and large onboard memory can deal with everything that is thrown at it without stuttering and freezing.
So yes training, attitude etc are all important and make for a safe pilot 99% of the time but there is more to it than that.
It is interesting in the safe confines of a simulator to throw more and more failures at a pilot until he goes into brain freeze where the brain can no longer deal with the information coming in and the level that that happens varies from person to person.
Pace
This is a hard one so I would like to add another angle or call it a slight suspicion of mine
I have flown with pilots who are extremely methodical and detailed but go at one mental speed and appear unable to pick up their game if events require that.
I have also flown with pilots who are equally detailed and methodical but can also pick up their game when required and to whatever level that is required and they tend to be the best.
They seem to have very fast visual brains and are natural multi taskers.
In between that lot there are various combinations of the above.
I read an interesting article on how our brains worked and how we all have different talents and abilities.
Most of us are fine when all is running ok but it is when something starts to go wrong that the flaws appear.
It was explained like this. Imagine a computer which holds banks of memory.
Now think of the graphics card which also holds its own memory.
As we gain experience a lot of stuff is stowed away in the computer memory banks while the graphics card memory deals with all the instant and visual stuff.
Some of us have small amounts of memory on the graphics card and rely on our main memory in the computer.
Flash to much information too fast and the poor graphics card stutters and then freezes.
The guy lucky enough to have top of the range high memory cards and large onboard memory can deal with everything that is thrown at it without stuttering and freezing.
So yes training, attitude etc are all important and make for a safe pilot 99% of the time but there is more to it than that.
It is interesting in the safe confines of a simulator to throw more and more failures at a pilot until he goes into brain freeze where the brain can no longer deal with the information coming in and the level that that happens varies from person to person.
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The catch in all this is that pilot training - all the way up to airline pilots - does not include any kind of character profiling and psychological testing such as might be implied in the above.
I'd think that austronauts were/are chosen with plenty of such testing, and I would be amazed if the RAF did not use psychological profiling for jet pilots, and anyway it is becoming pretty standard in big-company recruitment, but to become an airline pilot you only need to pass 14 exams and grind through endless training which is pretty well structured. To become a private pilot you need a lot less of that. But anybody with an IQ of more than 50 and with sufficient determination (and funding, perhaps) will make it eventually - despite the alleged establishment efforts to use the IR as a gatekeeper to stop undesirables from getting airline jobs
Back to private flying, it would be wrong to use psychological profiling as a basis for a PPL award, not because it would not improve safety (it would IMHO be the only way to improve safety) but because the State has no business in dictating individual attitude to risk. If one applied this to pilots, for every life safed one would save a 100 lives by applying it to car licenses.
I'd think that austronauts were/are chosen with plenty of such testing, and I would be amazed if the RAF did not use psychological profiling for jet pilots, and anyway it is becoming pretty standard in big-company recruitment, but to become an airline pilot you only need to pass 14 exams and grind through endless training which is pretty well structured. To become a private pilot you need a lot less of that. But anybody with an IQ of more than 50 and with sufficient determination (and funding, perhaps) will make it eventually - despite the alleged establishment efforts to use the IR as a gatekeeper to stop undesirables from getting airline jobs
Back to private flying, it would be wrong to use psychological profiling as a basis for a PPL award, not because it would not improve safety (it would IMHO be the only way to improve safety) but because the State has no business in dictating individual attitude to risk. If one applied this to pilots, for every life safed one would save a 100 lives by applying it to car licenses.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10540
That sort of testing is done by Airline selection groups such as CTC But I totally agree with you that in Private flying we would not want anything like testing.
The reason for that is that the majority of Private Pilots fly for fun on days and weather that they select and as it is for fun they avoid conditions which would test them beyond their experience or capability levels.
But it is when such pilots go out of their comfort zones voluntarely or otherwise that any flaws, lack of training/ currency or natural abilities will rear its ugly head often with disasterous consequencies.
It has been argued that brain freeze accounts for the majority of crashes loss of control etc.
The only way to raise those brain freeze levels is by loading more and more info into the main computer memory ie by training, familiarity and experience meaning the graphics card memory has less to deal with especially in high overload situations
Pace
That sort of testing is done by Airline selection groups such as CTC But I totally agree with you that in Private flying we would not want anything like testing.
The reason for that is that the majority of Private Pilots fly for fun on days and weather that they select and as it is for fun they avoid conditions which would test them beyond their experience or capability levels.
But it is when such pilots go out of their comfort zones voluntarely or otherwise that any flaws, lack of training/ currency or natural abilities will rear its ugly head often with disasterous consequencies.
It has been argued that brain freeze accounts for the majority of crashes loss of control etc.
The only way to raise those brain freeze levels is by loading more and more info into the main computer memory ie by training, familiarity and experience meaning the graphics card memory has less to deal with especially in high overload situations
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 31st May 2010 at 15:59.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No suprise there.
Years ago, I went out with a (slightly mad) gurl who used to work for a business closely involved with airline travel. Her entire office of ~ 200 people had been recruited for the "cheerleader" character profile. Apparently, they all got on very well, all being equally empty headed, and most people in there were sh*agging somebody in the office
Just like the airlines, then (reading Air Babylon... must be true).
Years ago, I went out with a (slightly mad) gurl who used to work for a business closely involved with airline travel. Her entire office of ~ 200 people had been recruited for the "cheerleader" character profile. Apparently, they all got on very well, all being equally empty headed, and most people in there were sh*agging somebody in the office
Just like the airlines, then
(reading Air Babylon... must be true).
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Check out posters from world war one, remember the 'old bold pilots' stuff. Anyone of any maturity will understand that people's attitiude is key to their performance in many ways.
If my understanding of the article is correct it goes deeper than that; the suggestion is the "right" attitude is innate as I think IO suggets in the thread above.
Is that not surprising or counter intuitive? It certainly isnt obvious, or if it is the FAA has missed the bl**ding obvious.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt many doubt that pilot psychology affects the likelihood of unexpected death while flying.
What I am sure would suprise nearly everybody is that GA equipment modernisation has not improved the fatality rate.
It has definitely improved the airline crash rate - though together with this we have much more sophisticated training compared with the goode olde days of "hire all the ex Spitfire pilots".
So what does that leave, as factors affecting fatalities?
It leaves the pilot and his training!
The next level of analysis would try to separate the effect of pilot's attitude from his training.
Neither has changed since GA was invented ~ 100 years ago. The lack of PPL candidate psychological screening has not changed. The training has also not changed (in any significant manner) - it is still treated like training for a hobby e.g. how to grow cabbages... something you can drop out of when you get bored (which is exactly what the vast majority of people do, pretty quickly).
So I am not sure where to go from here. Psychological screening is obviously not going to happen (nor should it). The equipment is not going to magically improve (the world is owned by Garmin). That leaves only the training, and I cannot see anything ever changing on that front - too many vested (business) interests.
We will see better capabilities e.g. precision GPS approaches to places previously without any approach (maybe not in the UK with its money-driven privatised ATC, but elsewhere). But these are prob99 not going to reduce fatalities because whereas currently almost nobody flies DIY approaches, everybody with the kit will be flying LPV approaches. It's like the SE v. ME argument: twins are no safer because people fly riskier mission profiles. This may be true with avionics also; a G1000 and a parachute is bound to reduce the perceived risk (wrongly with the G1000 but rightly with the chute).
What I am sure would suprise nearly everybody is that GA equipment modernisation has not improved the fatality rate.
It has definitely improved the airline crash rate - though together with this we have much more sophisticated training compared with the goode olde days of "hire all the ex Spitfire pilots".
So what does that leave, as factors affecting fatalities?
It leaves the pilot and his training!
The next level of analysis would try to separate the effect of pilot's attitude from his training.
Neither has changed since GA was invented ~ 100 years ago. The lack of PPL candidate psychological screening has not changed. The training has also not changed (in any significant manner) - it is still treated like training for a hobby e.g. how to grow cabbages... something you can drop out of when you get bored (which is exactly what the vast majority of people do, pretty quickly).
So I am not sure where to go from here. Psychological screening is obviously not going to happen (nor should it). The equipment is not going to magically improve (the world is owned by Garmin). That leaves only the training, and I cannot see anything ever changing on that front - too many vested (business) interests.
We will see better capabilities e.g. precision GPS approaches to places previously without any approach (maybe not in the UK with its money-driven privatised ATC, but elsewhere). But these are prob99 not going to reduce fatalities because whereas currently almost nobody flies DIY approaches, everybody with the kit will be flying LPV approaches. It's like the SE v. ME argument: twins are no safer because people fly riskier mission profiles. This may be true with avionics also; a G1000 and a parachute is bound to reduce the perceived risk (wrongly with the G1000 but rightly with the chute).
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10540
That line of yours brings in another angle different horses for different courses! Airline pilot profiles are for the team player almost accountant type profiles while the fast jet pilot is the loner the risk taker.
The Ferry pilot another animal
Maybe the cowboy pilot suits a certain situation so we have to ask what is a good pilot and what is a bad pilot?
The litmus test was always would you trust your kids in their hands and probably that answers it!
Does the pilot instill in you the feeling that he will not loose the plot under any pressure, will make the right choices and will never get behind the aircraft? and knows his aircraft as if it was an extension of himself.
Any other opinions
Pace
some of whom will be good and some will also be cowboys
different horses for different courses! Airline pilot profiles are for the team player almost accountant type profiles while the fast jet pilot is the loner the risk taker.The Ferry pilot another animal
Maybe the cowboy pilot suits a certain situation so we have to ask what is a good pilot and what is a bad pilot?
The litmus test was always would you trust your kids in their hands and probably that answers it!
Does the pilot instill in you the feeling that he will not loose the plot under any pressure, will make the right choices and will never get behind the aircraft? and knows his aircraft as if it was an extension of himself.
Any other opinions
Pace
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Kernow
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is also an interesting aspect to this in terms of technology.
Do you encourage aeroplanes to be something which is easy to fly, has intergated safety systems and all the high-tech bells and whistles which will deliver high levels of safety to lower levels of skill and experience or do you regress to something simpler in terms of technology that requires a higher degree of 'pilot involvement' in the flying perhaps of the 'Cub' type of aircraft on the grounds that when something goes wrong the pilots hands on flying skills will get them back safely.
The arguement could be that without a panel full of instruments one is less likely to push on into deteriorating weather.
I would be interested in people's opinions of whether a Cirrus, for example, is safer than a microlight (or a Tiger Moth)!
Do you encourage aeroplanes to be something which is easy to fly, has intergated safety systems and all the high-tech bells and whistles which will deliver high levels of safety to lower levels of skill and experience or do you regress to something simpler in terms of technology that requires a higher degree of 'pilot involvement' in the flying perhaps of the 'Cub' type of aircraft on the grounds that when something goes wrong the pilots hands on flying skills will get them back safely.
The arguement could be that without a panel full of instruments one is less likely to push on into deteriorating weather.
I would be interested in people's opinions of whether a Cirrus, for example, is safer than a microlight (or a Tiger Moth)!
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is hardly any correlation between experience and ability...
Good training, and ability, yes... Good common sense, backed up with sound fundamental knowledge, yes... Especially, good line experience, backed up by good training, in a good environment, yes...
But Hans-Jurgen Merton is proof (if it were needed) that there is no link between experience and ability.
Was it Napoleon who wanted 'lucky' generals, not experienced ones? I believe it was.
Good training, and ability, yes... Good common sense, backed up with sound fundamental knowledge, yes... Especially, good line experience, backed up by good training, in a good environment, yes...
But Hans-Jurgen Merton is proof (if it were needed) that there is no link between experience and ability.
Was it Napoleon who wanted 'lucky' generals, not experienced ones? I believe it was.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps more instructional time needs to be spent "loading pilots up".
We have all been in situations when events are in danger of over taking us. The article expounds that it is how the pilot reacts in these situations that can make the difference between life and death.
Of course this is relatively easy to do in the simulator, which is maybe one reason why the "professional" pilot is able to perform better. I spent three hours in one of the Airbus simulators recently; it was most impressive to see how many different scenarios could be presented, and I know I only scratched the surface of the scenarios the professionals experience.
Another reason could be that there is a SOP for most scenarios, so if the SOP is learnt and reproduced there is a good chance that the pilots will play out the best sequence of events to result in the best solution to the problem.
You may have seen the BBC's recent analysis of the Air France tragedy last year over the Atlantic. I found it interesting that despite it being a SOP how many pilots failed to advance the throttles quickly when presented with a failure of the ASI. The suggestion was the Air France pilot were so over loaded with mutliple failures that they may have failed to take the single action that could have saved the aircraft. Under pressure did they suffer from the same inability to prioritise that the article suggests is the single most significant contributor to accidents?
We in GA are not so lucky. It is difficult for instructors to "simulate" events in real life that could over load a pilot and see how the pilot reacts. Never the less some instructors are able to achieve this.
We have all been in situations when events are in danger of over taking us. The article expounds that it is how the pilot reacts in these situations that can make the difference between life and death.
Of course this is relatively easy to do in the simulator, which is maybe one reason why the "professional" pilot is able to perform better. I spent three hours in one of the Airbus simulators recently; it was most impressive to see how many different scenarios could be presented, and I know I only scratched the surface of the scenarios the professionals experience.
Another reason could be that there is a SOP for most scenarios, so if the SOP is learnt and reproduced there is a good chance that the pilots will play out the best sequence of events to result in the best solution to the problem.
You may have seen the BBC's recent analysis of the Air France tragedy last year over the Atlantic. I found it interesting that despite it being a SOP how many pilots failed to advance the throttles quickly when presented with a failure of the ASI. The suggestion was the Air France pilot were so over loaded with mutliple failures that they may have failed to take the single action that could have saved the aircraft. Under pressure did they suffer from the same inability to prioritise that the article suggests is the single most significant contributor to accidents?
We in GA are not so lucky. It is difficult for instructors to "simulate" events in real life that could over load a pilot and see how the pilot reacts. Never the less some instructors are able to achieve this.
Has the fatal air accident which elicited the comment by Chuck Yeager "Scott was always a risk taker", any relevance to this discussion, bearing in mind how many years he flew before the accident?
Last edited by Maoraigh1; 31st May 2010 at 20:47. Reason: Typo
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I found it interesting that despite it being a SOP how many pilots failed to advance the throttles quickly when presented with a failure of the ASI.
In a GA plane, in severe turbulence, you really just need to hold the horizon the right way up, more or less, and if possible maintain the pitch attitude. In the Airbus context, setting 85% N1 (or whatever) and hand-flying the specified pitch angle, is probably very hard. Especially as the speed band between stall and overspeed, at FL350, is probably only about 30kt or so wide, so you have to get it reasonably right. Even reading the instruments might have been hard.
I suspect the reason so many pilots did not revert to manual mode is that they almost never have to do so for real.