Bjorn,

Respectfully, I disagree with your statement that

Do you suggest it is an acceptable term to replace 'human error' provided that the error is committed by someone who is a pilot?

Human error is a consequence of being human - only humans can truly make such errors, and to do so requires that the entity committing the error is human.

Ergo, pilot error must be a consequence of being a pilot.

Take a crop-sprayer who spends all day flying at very low height over fields with occasional fences and gates, for which he pulls up. At the end of the day, he gets into his car to drive home. As he approaches a gate across the road, he pulls back on the steering wheel. He realises his error too late, and the car hits the gate. That is 'pilot error': an error committed exclusively because the person committing it is a pilot and acted as a pilot when presented with a familiar cue.

I genuinely struggle to think of another case of 'pilot error' - perhaps someone else can bring one to the forum?

I get heartily upset when I see aviation professionals use this hackneyed and unhelpful expression; to do so simply fuels the fires of the media and manufacturers. I get equally upset when I read elsewhere

Quote:

---

Pilots safer than ever - Study

---

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=306097

The system provides safety or allows opportunities for accidents and incidents, pilots, engineers, air traffic controllers, designers, and most crucially of all, managers and those exercising financial muscle, influence the system, and to examine elements of it in such isolation, especially when doing so involves crediting 'pilot error' with academic recognition, is to miss the point.

How about the term "Lucky Pilot "?

I have been flying most of my working life as a pilot in so many different flying machines both fixed and rotary wing I can't even remember them all.

A very large amount of my time was in so called high risk flying such as aerial application and fire bombing.

I have yet to fill out an accident report, so I must be a "Lucky Pilot "

I wonder if I should sell everything I own and take the money to Las Vegas and put it all on a high paying spot on the Craps table and multiply my wealth by say 20 times ?

If I'm so lucky flying it should work at the craps table in Las Vegas shouldn't it?

Not at all: 'pilot error' is a human error commited by a pilot. It is a consequence of being human, and it is commited in one's capacity of being a pilot.

Pilot errors won't go away just because we call them something else, and I must say I have never agreed with the notion that they take on a totally different meaning simply by calling them "human" rather than "pilot"... Who was unaware that pilots are human? If pilots are human, how could "pilot error" mean something else than "human error"?

25 years ago, the distinction you are trying to make might have made sense... But today, I think it is quite obvious that when someone with an aviation safety interest say "pilot error", they mean "human error commited by a pilot".

Can you give an example of an error which is not a consequence of [someone] being human? If not, is "human" a useful qualifier?

Bjorn,

We'll have to disagree.

For me, 'pilot error' is a means of apportioning blame across the divide of human frailty. The phrase is judge, jury, and executioner.

The public like to hear about 'pilot error' because they like someone to be 'to blame', the manufacturers love it because their aircraft are not 'to blame', even when many errors are designed-in or not designed-out when they could have been.

Taking your assertion at face value, why do we not have any similar terms for other professionals' errors?

I'm not saying 'pilot errors won't go away'; I'm saying that nothing is gained, and so much lost, by giving straightforward human error the magic 'pilot' qualifier.

...to a non-aviation professional, this means that the pilot was to blame and should be punished.

Bookworm, you're right, but it's in such common use as to be unstoppable. You'd also be right to criticise those who, as they disconnect the autobrakes, call "manual braking" - it should, of course, be "pedal braking"! (Some aircraft, like the lovely Dove, do have manual brakes, but no autobrakes, so the problem doesn't arise!)

If "human error" just means "error", then I don't think it's unreasonable to talk about subcategories of error. "Pilot error", "maintenance error", "ATC error" can all be useful terms if taken in context and with perspective. I share your concern that the term has been used in the past as an excuse for failures of the broader system, but that doesn't mean that we can't talk about such failures to perform to the expected standard.

Prince pilot,

I hope that you received the wisdom that you sought, before this tread drifted so far off topic! I suppose that I can't argue against many of the facts and precisions presented here, but I sure think that many are out of place. The stream of unkindnesses aren't all that helpful either!

Speaking as a 30+ year private pilot, with 5000+ hours PIC on 49 types, I do not think myself at a lesser skill standing to a commercial pilot of commensurate experience, other than I do not collect payment for any flying I do, or otherwise excercise commercial pilot privilages. Speaking as a 20 year Cessna 150 owner, they are no less a worthy aircraft than any other. They continue to do well what they were designed for, and are very useful in many other roles as well! (and yes, I have carried my wife and two kids in mine). Anyone who is going to generalize a private pilot C150 "commander" as any less a pilot than any other, could perhaps rethink their position.

Sorry for further drifting this thread, but we have to keep things realistic here!

As for your original concerns, a local personality is known for saying: "Luck favours the prepared". That's the way I try to fly, prepared. I've had a lot of luck!

Don't let the sticklers here damp your views of our industry!

Pilot DAR