Average number of mistakes on each flight
Thread Starter
Joined: Feb 2018
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
From: Earth
Average number of mistakes on each flight
Hi all
I had read somewhere a report which mentioned that an average airline pilot makes X number of mistakes on every flight - as long as those mistakes are identified, incidents and accidents can be avoided.
I can't remember where this was. Anyone has any idea?
I had read somewhere a report which mentioned that an average airline pilot makes X number of mistakes on every flight - as long as those mistakes are identified, incidents and accidents can be avoided.
I can't remember where this was. Anyone has any idea?
Joined: Mar 2005
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 6,563
Likes: 953
From: Aus
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
From: Frankfurt
Error rate per flight
i ran some LOSA projects a couple of years back. In one survey of 180-ish flights the error rate was 6/sector. In another survey looking at flight through the WOCL the rate was 10/sector. If you look at the range, we were seeing anything from 2-22/sector. No sector was error free.
Joined: Oct 2007
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,027
Likes: 121
From: Wherever I go, there I am
i ran some LOSA projects a couple of years back. In one survey of 180-ish flights the error rate was 6/sector. In another survey looking at flight through the WOCL the rate was 10/sector. If you look at the range, we were seeing anything from 2-22/sector. No sector was error free.
Joined: Apr 2009
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 1,481
Likes: 489
From: A place in the sun
That is why the concept of the 'self-healing cockpit' is so valid. We all make mistakes, the issue is to recognise them and correct them in good time. All good crews do that.
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 54
From: An Island Province
CaptainGrizzley,
It would be interesting to understand why the reference is required, and how it would be used.
The quote ‘as long as those mistakes are identified, incidents and accidents can be avoided’ is open to interpretation. Normal operations can withstand many mistakes, some activities might rely on ‘mistakes’ for efficient operation. With identification, the quote qualifies outcome with ‘can’ be avoided, without assurance of success.
Also there could be a hidden assumption that all relevant mistakes will be detected, or if detected why whom, who judges relevance, consequence. The mistakes with consequence are those of interest, are the consequences significant or not, again who and how is this judged.
Sounds like Hollnagel, ‘what you find is what you look for’.
It would be interesting to understand why the reference is required, and how it would be used.
The quote ‘as long as those mistakes are identified, incidents and accidents can be avoided’ is open to interpretation. Normal operations can withstand many mistakes, some activities might rely on ‘mistakes’ for efficient operation. With identification, the quote qualifies outcome with ‘can’ be avoided, without assurance of success.
Also there could be a hidden assumption that all relevant mistakes will be detected, or if detected why whom, who judges relevance, consequence. The mistakes with consequence are those of interest, are the consequences significant or not, again who and how is this judged.
Sounds like Hollnagel, ‘what you find is what you look for’.
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,323
Likes: 54
From: An Island Province
Thanks CG,
Hawkins discusses error rate, but not the implications about detection and safety.
He considers the question of a normal error rate, but not in terms of an average pilot.
Also, the emphasis is on consequence.
The NASA paper aligns with LOSA, which in its purist sense is limited by view point, who judges # 8.
Hawkins discusses error rate, but not the implications about detection and safety.
He considers the question of a normal error rate, but not in terms of an average pilot.
Also, the emphasis is on consequence.
The NASA paper aligns with LOSA, which in its purist sense is limited by view point, who judges # 8.
