Pilots safer than ever - Study
Spooky 2;
According to information from an original link, the document should be released after today:
From the Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine site, click on "The Journal Online" and you'll see the table of contents for the upcoming January 2008 edition. All other articles that this Journal has published are available online so this one should be shortly. Here's the relevant section from the TOC:
According to information from an original link, the document should be released after today:
From the Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine site, click on "The Journal Online" and you'll see the table of contents for the upcoming January 2008 edition. All other articles that this Journal has published are available online so this one should be shortly. Here's the relevant section from the TOC:
Aviation, Space, and Environmental Medicine
Volume 79, Number 1
January 2008
EDITORIAL
Encouraging More Submissions
S. A. Nunneley
1
RESEARCH ARTICLES
Pilot Error in Air Carrier Mishaps: Longitudinal Trends Among 558 Reports, 1983-2002
S. P. Baker, Y. Qiang, G. W. Rebok, and G. Li
2
January 2008
EDITORIAL
Encouraging More Submissions
S. A. Nunneley
1
RESEARCH ARTICLES
Pilot Error in Air Carrier Mishaps: Longitudinal Trends Among 558 Reports, 1983-2002
S. P. Baker, Y. Qiang, G. W. Rebok, and G. Li
2
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
OTS has asked the right question;
The criteria for Pilot Error to be written up on an accident report have changed significantly with the inclusion of Human Factors and CRM studies. It would be interesting to see how those data points have changed in 20 years before anyone hangs their hat on this report.
The question would be whether they used the same criteria as used in previous studies...
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given that the majority of accident reports I have read have some degree of mistaken causal reasoning in Section 3, and that the statistics are directly derived from uncritical acceptance of the assertions in this section, differences are as likely to reflect what is currently "in" to say and what "out", as they are to reflect objective differences in flying airplanes.
Those mistakes can be trivial or they can be profound, and I know of no way of controlling for this confounding factor. That said, however, I'll certainly read the article at some point for the insight any such well-performed longitudinal study must provide.
PBL
Those mistakes can be trivial or they can be profound, and I know of no way of controlling for this confounding factor. That said, however, I'll certainly read the article at some point for the insight any such well-performed longitudinal study must provide.
PBL
Psychophysiological entity
Avman says
I think this is quite true, it's just that the CRMs SOPs and nice clean new pilots are stopping the excrement well before it hits the fan. As an oldie, I didn't think they would...but they are studies show.
It seems that some weeks ago Mrs LR read out some comment that went something like this. "We are worried that the numbers are so good because we have no Idea why, and this is puzzling us."
This rough gist was from a serious journal. Sci Am / Mind / Wired or the like.
That's a funny concept. There's a danger in things being really good, when you don't know why they are.
simply a gut feeling that if the excrement hits the fan I'm no longer so confident that the young pups up front will have sufficient real stick & rudder experience to draw from to fly me out of it.
It seems that some weeks ago Mrs LR read out some comment that went something like this. "We are worried that the numbers are so good because we have no Idea why, and this is puzzling us."
This rough gist was from a serious journal. Sci Am / Mind / Wired or the like.
That's a funny concept. There's a danger in things being really good, when you don't know why they are.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by I-FORD
If the total number of aeronautical incidents/accidents decreased during the same period of the same amount it is good news.
What is not so good news is what IATA are saying. I got my Dec 17 copy of AvWeek only yesterday and I refer to page 39, "Strengthening Safety". I didn't find the article on the free part of their WWW site.
Summary. IATA sees "worrying trends ...particularly a move be some carriers to lower qualification requirements as they struggle to fill pilot seats. The demand for 17,000 pilots per yera is 3,000-3,500 above what training programs can accomodate, says Juergen Haacker, IATA's director of operations safety. The first signs of trouble from that shortfall are emerging as some airlines are offering captain positions with flight time requirements 50% below accepted minimum levels, he says."
Hull losses in 2007 have increased to 0.83 permillion flights, the worst in four years (although I think that could well be just the usual blip). Last year was 0.65 per million, a record low.
Bisignani says Brazil, Africa and Indonesia were this year's particular trouble spots. Africa is up to 4.94 per million from 4.31 last year; Asia-Pacific went up to 2.68 from 0.67 (!); Latin America to 2.06 from 1.80. But the former Soviet states were most improved, with 0.00 (!) this year after 8.60 last. US: 0.22 this, 0.49 last. Europe: 0.36 this, 0.32 last.
IATA is anticipating kicking out some members at the end of 2008 that have not yet undergone IOSA; specifically, 6-9 of them.
I can't tell if there are many meaningful trends here or if these are within the standard deviation or the expected frequency of the occasional outlier. Let's hope a bit of both.
PBL
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Ask OPS!
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I LOVE the computers in the 'bus! The other day, approach to the LLZ/DME in Tegel, Berlin, we had to fly through a squall front on the approach, the AP's rolled to about 50 degrees AOB and 20 degrees nose down and the cavalry charge came up as the AP decided they'd had enough and it was my turn.
Thanks for the warning chips
more bl**dy paper work
Keeps me on my toes tho.
W2P
Thanks for the warning chips
more bl**dy paper work
Keeps me on my toes tho.
W2P
Calm before the storm.
Captain;
speeds low <into the VLS>
FO;
the autothrust is in.
Captain;
I have control
Yes into the VLS and reducing. One day the FO will be the captain.
Situational awareness is lost nowadays at the expense of pushing buttons.
Modern a/c are good, but we must remember they are there for us to
control.
REMEMBER IF IT IS NOT DOING WHAT YOU WANT IT TO DO,YOU HAVE 2 DISCONNECT BUTTONS.
YOU CAN ALWAYS RECONNECT THE A/P AND A/T WHEN THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED.
Captain;
speeds low <into the VLS>
FO;
the autothrust is in.
Captain;
I have control
Yes into the VLS and reducing. One day the FO will be the captain.
Situational awareness is lost nowadays at the expense of pushing buttons.
Modern a/c are good, but we must remember they are there for us to
control.
REMEMBER IF IT IS NOT DOING WHAT YOU WANT IT TO DO,YOU HAVE 2 DISCONNECT BUTTONS.
YOU CAN ALWAYS RECONNECT THE A/P AND A/T WHEN THE PROBLEM IS SOLVED.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 260
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very true, Rivalino, but if we don't train the inexperienced pilots in how to recognise when they are about to release the excrement towards the fan, that survey will be meaningless in the near future. MPL pilots will attain line status with minimum skills and only reacting by verifying the autoflight status, rather than take immediate action, has to be a priority for training.
Airline bosses want their pilots to keep to rigid SOP's and make maximum use of the autoflight systems - that will not change in the future, indeed it will get worse as CPDLC/RNP/ADS-B becomes more widespread and the button pushing increases to the detriment of monitoring and handling skills. 35 years ago I was given this piece of advice " if you want to improve your handling, then take it out and play with it!" ( I assumed he meant the autopilot)!!
As far as computerisation goes, this is my third attempt at posting on a relatively new all-singing computer - the first attempt ended with it crashing and giving me a page of gobbledygook technical stuff, the second ended with it freezing and having to be re-booted. I hope messrs Boeing and Airbus use better computer bits!
Airline bosses want their pilots to keep to rigid SOP's and make maximum use of the autoflight systems - that will not change in the future, indeed it will get worse as CPDLC/RNP/ADS-B becomes more widespread and the button pushing increases to the detriment of monitoring and handling skills. 35 years ago I was given this piece of advice " if you want to improve your handling, then take it out and play with it!" ( I assumed he meant the autopilot)!!
As far as computerisation goes, this is my third attempt at posting on a relatively new all-singing computer - the first attempt ended with it crashing and giving me a page of gobbledygook technical stuff, the second ended with it freezing and having to be re-booted. I hope messrs Boeing and Airbus use better computer bits!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Asia
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Technology maybe
Safer better TCAS, windshear warning and enhanced ground prox. sys that made this happen. better airport facility all around the world. better ground based radar and on the aircraft. Non-precision approach not often used in busy airports. Eventhough the computer don't decide; but it does give us pilots heads up before the problem occurs. So we may take action to avert an unsafe situation. Pilots safer now then Pilots before us?
Why is the airlines are so willing and feeling confident employing low experenced pilots? FDIS and FOQA? Perhaps... I don't know.
Why is the airlines are so willing and feeling confident employing low experenced pilots? FDIS and FOQA? Perhaps... I don't know.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: On a sunny beach
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Computers are there to help us pilots in the world and at times assist us and give us a little more time in making a better decision, though a computer dose need some one to drive it ! But i still think there has to be a balance between computer and pilots ! CRM and SOP being followed correctly makes a world of diffrence and eliminates a whole lot of confusion !!
It dosnt mean that the pilots today are any better than pilots 30 years ago were !! lots has changed in aviation in 30 years !
Safty first make all the diffrence
It dosnt mean that the pilots today are any better than pilots 30 years ago were !! lots has changed in aviation in 30 years !
Safty first make all the diffrence
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: NYC
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They are safer.... As long as they are awake...
Safe and awake is a good thing as the Airbus has a mind of its own....The NTSB is finally poking into the schedules of pilots and the hours of wakefullness... Maybe ALPA will finally get some thing done...
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...a_cockpit.html
http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...a_cockpit.html
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: On a sunny beach
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
odb if that is true then it is a good thing !!! I stand to be corected but isnt the FAA duty periode is 16 hrs and sectors have no effect on this time !!! to me that asking for a little trouble..... if you signing on at 1 am in the morning 16hrs later wakefulness has long gone out the window !!
Many other countries duty periode are governed by the local time of sign on and he amount of sectors that are to be completed !
Many other countries duty periode are governed by the local time of sign on and he amount of sectors that are to be completed !
checklist with that of a G-V see where you'd most likely---forget an item first!
Gengis:
Excellent response.
Paxboy:
True.
And the media (even academia?) often is ignorant of so many things. For example, a safe arrival does not mean that the flight was operated in a safe manner, or that the out-sourced maintenance was done correctly.
As for those 'experts' who performed the evaluation, how about those of us who fly 100-115 passengers in planes with no computers? We only have an altitude-hold autopilot. It can neither change to another VOR frequency/radial/course (i.e. the YYZ [112.15] 314 radial on V-36), navigate on its own, level-off nor move the throttles. But it can intercept a radial and a localizer/gs.
There is no 'progress' page to estimate fuel at eta!
The former glass-c0ckpit pilots will have to learn again how to fly raw data in the simulator. One IP very recently 'froze the simulator' and asked a new-hire, trying to fly an arc to a localizer, whether he knew where he was (using the fat VOR needle on the RMI). He said "I have no idea".
We might join an arc once or twice a year at MOT or LSE. And the ATC towers are shutdown.
Even Air Force base RAPCONs are closed late at night.
You vector yourself a bit, in order to intercept the localizer outside of the glideslope and you always question whether the braking action is almost as good as the last time it was reported (by a jet) about an hour ago before the Tower closed.
And some of us have had real problems in the past trying to learn a glass-c0ckpit or two, and are not always successful.
In many of our planes, "no real automatics"!
Two FOs with whom I just flew told me that they will not allow any of their family to fly on any affiliate airline which hires pilots with less than 300 total hours. The Captains often are flying mostly solo.
When the plane arrives in one piece, we can assume that it is a safe operation?
Excellent response.
Paxboy:
True.
And the media (even academia?) often is ignorant of so many things. For example, a safe arrival does not mean that the flight was operated in a safe manner, or that the out-sourced maintenance was done correctly.
As for those 'experts' who performed the evaluation, how about those of us who fly 100-115 passengers in planes with no computers? We only have an altitude-hold autopilot. It can neither change to another VOR frequency/radial/course (i.e. the YYZ [112.15] 314 radial on V-36), navigate on its own, level-off nor move the throttles. But it can intercept a radial and a localizer/gs.
There is no 'progress' page to estimate fuel at eta!
The former glass-c0ckpit pilots will have to learn again how to fly raw data in the simulator. One IP very recently 'froze the simulator' and asked a new-hire, trying to fly an arc to a localizer, whether he knew where he was (using the fat VOR needle on the RMI). He said "I have no idea".
We might join an arc once or twice a year at MOT or LSE. And the ATC towers are shutdown.
Even Air Force base RAPCONs are closed late at night.
You vector yourself a bit, in order to intercept the localizer outside of the glideslope and you always question whether the braking action is almost as good as the last time it was reported (by a jet) about an hour ago before the Tower closed.
And some of us have had real problems in the past trying to learn a glass-c0ckpit or two, and are not always successful.
In many of our planes, "no real automatics"!
Two FOs with whom I just flew told me that they will not allow any of their family to fly on any affiliate airline which hires pilots with less than 300 total hours. The Captains often are flying mostly solo.
When the plane arrives in one piece, we can assume that it is a safe operation?
Last edited by Ignition Override; 31st Dec 2007 at 05:59.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by fireflybob
I recall a comment I read years ago that its not so much the numbers of accidents but the reasons behind the accidents that do occur.
Hence the so-called "Airbus philosophy" of twenty years ago: every pilot can fly this plane as well as a test pilot.
Then the catch became apparent: if pilots don't make errors on your airplanes, then all your crashes must be the fault of the airplane. And if all crashes are the fault of the airplane, why would anybody buy the airplane?
The "philosophy" seems to have been carefully deemphasised sometime around 1993-4.
PBL
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 194
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Before we give the pilots all the credit.....
I think before we all think the pilots are safer we might want to consider what type of equipment that we have now.
- Computerized Flight planning / Wt and Balance
- Computerized Maint. Tracking
- TAWS / Ground Prox
- TCAS
- EFIS
- More reliance on autopilots
While I would have never believed it, the manufacturers were probably right in trying to 'get the pilot out of the cockpit' in the last 20 years. Lower time pilots are much more prevelant these days, children of the Magenta is what the guys said at Simuflite. They might not be able to troubleshoot, or fly IFR, but if the TCAS or ground prox says to climb and turn, guys are doing it. I am sure that's saved some lives.
- Computerized Flight planning / Wt and Balance
- Computerized Maint. Tracking
- TAWS / Ground Prox
- TCAS
- EFIS
- More reliance on autopilots
While I would have never believed it, the manufacturers were probably right in trying to 'get the pilot out of the cockpit' in the last 20 years. Lower time pilots are much more prevelant these days, children of the Magenta is what the guys said at Simuflite. They might not be able to troubleshoot, or fly IFR, but if the TCAS or ground prox says to climb and turn, guys are doing it. I am sure that's saved some lives.
Registered User **
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, this is the truth behind the study:
The study compares statistics of 1983 with those of 2002.
Back in those days, there was still a kind of corruption that said: "blame the dead, save the live ones". They blamed anyone who was most convenient to blame, mostly the pilots if they happened to be dead.
In those days, there were no advanced computer systems as we have nowadays, and therefore it was very difficult to find the real cause behind an incident/accident.
Parameters measured by Flight Data Recorders were not as numerous, certainly in the analog pre-Fly-by-wire era. Therefore, reports were based on wide speculations.
Also the method of investigations has changed: now investigators look at the chain of events that brings to the crash and reconstructs the whole flight, down to the pre flight events. This has proven to be very helpful in reducing accident factors.
Improved media coverage has played an important role in pushing investigators to undertake full investigations to determine the real causes of crashes.
A good example is the Bijlmerramp case, an EL-AL B747 that crashed after take-off in Amsterdam. Journalists found out that investigators were seeding their reports with false information and criticized them widely.
About hull-losses statistics, it is unfortunately something one can not compare from one year to the other unless the differences are very pronounced.
Most hull-losses occured in the last years happened in emerging countries that have aviation standards that developped countries had 20 years ago.
That is mainly because they can't afford to have the same, modern equipment, and to have the same maintenance standards.
Also, I would like to add that though the modern computer systems do not make any decisions, they take over many tasks from the pilots so that these can concentrate more on the decisions they need to make. Add to that, they assist pilots in decision-making by giving them precise data through faster, more precise calculations.
The criteria for Pilot Error to be written up on an accident report have changed significantly with the inclusion of Human Factors and CRM studies. It would be interesting to see how those data points have changed in 20 years before anyone hangs their hat on this report.
Back in those days, there was still a kind of corruption that said: "blame the dead, save the live ones". They blamed anyone who was most convenient to blame, mostly the pilots if they happened to be dead.
In those days, there were no advanced computer systems as we have nowadays, and therefore it was very difficult to find the real cause behind an incident/accident.
Parameters measured by Flight Data Recorders were not as numerous, certainly in the analog pre-Fly-by-wire era. Therefore, reports were based on wide speculations.
Also the method of investigations has changed: now investigators look at the chain of events that brings to the crash and reconstructs the whole flight, down to the pre flight events. This has proven to be very helpful in reducing accident factors.
Improved media coverage has played an important role in pushing investigators to undertake full investigations to determine the real causes of crashes.
A good example is the Bijlmerramp case, an EL-AL B747 that crashed after take-off in Amsterdam. Journalists found out that investigators were seeding their reports with false information and criticized them widely.
About hull-losses statistics, it is unfortunately something one can not compare from one year to the other unless the differences are very pronounced.
Most hull-losses occured in the last years happened in emerging countries that have aviation standards that developped countries had 20 years ago.
That is mainly because they can't afford to have the same, modern equipment, and to have the same maintenance standards.
Also, I would like to add that though the modern computer systems do not make any decisions, they take over many tasks from the pilots so that these can concentrate more on the decisions they need to make. Add to that, they assist pilots in decision-making by giving them precise data through faster, more precise calculations.