Does "experience with no accidents" mean a pilot is "safe"
 

It has been proposed elsewhere that a pilot who has not had an accident is more safe than one who has.

What do we think, is this so? Is the pilot who has had a couple of small "events", and learned from them to prevent the next, more safe that a pilot who has yet to learn, and have "the big one"?

I admit it, I've had a few, though I have never injured anyone, nor ended a plane's life. I think I'm somewhat safe, but another [small] event or two in my career will mean that I'm still out there flying, and learning....

Thoughts?

Another concern is that choosing to have an accident can be a sensible decision. Obvious examples include EFATO turnbacks, hitting the far hedge rather than the near one in a forced landing. Precautionary landings with a relatively high risk of damage.

I wonder whether insisting too strongly on a zero-accident record might make for more dangerous pilots?

Wouldn't you want to fly with someone who has had lots of incidents and crashes he will be so much more capable of handling an emergency than a pilot who has flown for 50 years blemish free.:)

I think that incidents have definitely made me a better pilot. I have never damaged an aircraft through my own mistake (and I hope and work hard to continue that!), but have had incidents such as electrical failure, partial engine failure, and gear up landing (due to mechanical failure). I feel that the experience gained in handling these is immensely valuable for any future unexpected events.

Of course, I have certainly made mistakes; I've just been lucky enough, or caught them soon enough, that no damage has been done; and this experience too is very helpful.

It's interesting, though; we can't really induce real emergencies to pilots to help them learn, so is there a way to capture this learning over and above what is already done with regards to practicing emergencies in training? The level of realism achievable by airline simulators is currently out of reach to we GA pilots, but with the advance of technology, maybe not forever?

Maybe the question is having a preventable accident?

For instance you can have a gear failure that can not be rectified in flight and you have to land gear up.

That is considered an accident however it is not the fault of the pilot.

On the other hand if you land short of the runway and damage the airplane that is preventable.

I fly/used to fly radio control helicopters - accidents are inevitable, sometimes costly, and being time-poor I don't enjoy fixing them as much as I used to. The accident types are different, of course, from those of full-scale aircraft but I certainly learned a lot about attention to detail in pre-flight checks. Also I noticed that if I fly when I'm tired or grumpy I'm much more likely to crash, so I don't.

The other thing you learn is how to crash well - accepting the inevitable and cutting the power to the rotor often saves a much worse accident. It won't teach you how to handle inadvertent IMC, but does teach some useful attitudes and how to stay calm under pressure.

Any experience should be a learning exercise I would have thought. Isn't there an expression that says experience is what you get immediately after you need it.
The best instructor I had was someone that seemed to have a complete affinity with the plane.
It was only years later that I learned that he had crashed shortly after getting his license.
I tend to say to students and some punters (at a suitable time and place) that pilots are not only trained to fly, but good pilots are trained to crash gently.
I have some acquaintances who have large amounts of logged hours which they tend to mention on a regular basis and when they do I usually say there is a difference between logged hours and flying hours.
I have one acquaintance in particular like this who has on three occasions with me literally panicked over nothing other than getting slightly out of his comfort zone.

The CAA used to have a large sign outside saying:
SAFETY IS NO ACCIDENT"

They have removed it, so clearly they no longer think its's true, or perhaps it no longer portrays Mr Haines's image of a Lean, Efficient, Corporate Quango

"Experience with no accidents" does mean nothing, except "lucky pilot". The opposite you have to question why. Incidents happen often, accidents happen less often, but from the number of entries you cannot distinguish "pilot is careless" from "pilot lacked luck". "No accident" usually means "no accident, yet" and not "safe", but "safe, until". If we could predict the next accident and would be able to justify wether an experience from a former accident is of help or not, we would approach god-like knowledge. But, we can only speculate.

My old man always said: "You haven't learnt to ride a horse until you have fallen off one."

All valid points.
The hard part though, is to know the difference between the pilot who has had no incidents because he's been fortunate, and the pilot who has had no incidents because he has learned from other people's mistakes.
And, to know the difference between the pilot who's had a few incidents and learned from them, and the pilot who's had a few incidents and thinks s/he's invincible.

How do you think the insurance companies would view the risk of insuring a pilot who has had a few recorded and in the public domain incidents/accidents and the pilot who has never had one?

I tend to welcome such an approach, as insurances have to document why they take decisions in calculating risks. Whenever they work on this, they have to collect statistics and do some math on it. If this exists, we are enabled to discuss facts (or shoot at opinions only). But, right now I don't know of such statistics.

The majority of aircraft accidents occur because the pilot has placed himself in a situation where an accident is more likely to occur.
I would always prefer to fly with the person who has used his flying experience to avoid such situations and has therefore never had an accident.

I think it has been mentioned already, but there can be a case of "bad luck" when an incident is no fault of the pilot, but an unforeseen mechanical failure resulting in bent metal or pilot.

@PA28181: what in the world is "an unforeseen mechanical failure resulting in bent pilot"? Bent metal I get, but the whole pilot?

I think you are finding a small colloquial language difficulty here "Chickenhouse"

Surely a wise man learns not from his own mistakes but the mistakes of others? Thus preventing him from making the same mistake him/herself?

I've made some non costly mistakes, we all day everyday whatever we are doing. I was flying an Arrow yesterday on my own and thought I would try a couple of stalls on the way as I wasn't in a rush. HASELL checks completed I tried a clean power off stall first. There goes the warning horn, bit fast I thought at 80 kts but yoke forward, ball in middle, horn still blaring. Arrow by now making like an arrow, bit more power, horn goes off, recover having lost about 500'. Most unusual I thought. Tried a gear/flaps down with power stall. ASI down to around 50 kts, yoke hard back, there goes the horn, wings get confused, yoke forward slightly and instant recovery....then the penny dropped and I flew on feeling like a clot...:\. Made note to self...

The pilot who has handled several incidents which were beyond his control to prevent and prevented them becoming accidents is always a better pilot (or very lucky).

Rod1

Sorry, have to be pedantic here. If said pilot survived and managed it was hardly "beyond his control"