Pilot Error is 85%

[INA201]

You know it occurred to me while going through annual this year how much time is spent on the mechanical side of flying.  Oil analysis, compressions, is the dual mag attached with the proper torque, oil leak, CHTs, no metal in the filter, and on and on.  I'm wondering if we are really focusing on the 85% or just the15% too much.  There seems to be an underlying worry among the aviation community and general public of a mechanical failure while the stats show that YOU are about 6X more likely to be the real cause of a fatal crash than the mechanics of the aircraft.  "He was a great pilot and couldn't have messed up."  Well, guess what, there is an 85% chance he or she did mess up.  I have to say that personally I've never felt uncomfortable flying the Mooney but am I fully prepared to handle all situations.    I know this is kind of a boring topic but what do you guys think?

https://www.avbuyer.com/articles/insurance-biz-av/85-of-aviation-accidents-are-caused-by-pilot-error-28950

[DonMuncy]

If you had to make a choice between working on the mechanical problems or training to make better judgments as a pilot, obviously, working on the pilot would be the better choice. But I think we work on the mechanical ones because there are real (and sometimes relatively easy) solutions, whereas improving pilot judgment aptitude is a much more nebulous, and therefore, often, more difficult thing. Naturally, the best answer is to improve both.

[aviatoreb]

8 minutes ago, DonMuncy said:

If you had to make a choice between working on the mechanical problems or training to make better judgments as a pilot, obviously, working on the pilot would be the better choice. But I think we work on the mechanical ones because there are real (and sometimes relatively easy) solutions, whereas improving pilot judgment aptitude is a much more nebulous, and therefore, often, more difficult thing. Naturally, the best answer is to improve both.

All the above.

[201er]

Mechanical descions are made without pressure, on the ground, and often under circumstances where taking more time/care is compensated.

[kortopates]

Indeed it should be no surprise that the human element is the weakest link responsible for 3/4 of all accidents (fatal and non-fatal) with the remainder 1/4 made up of both mechanical and unknown causes. its this later 1/4 that varies between mechanical and unknown portions between fatals and non-fatals for non-commercial ops. (For Commercial ops the mechanical and unknown portion make up a smaller portion.)

[tigers2007]

Yesterday evening I took a screenshot of a Flightaware track of this C150 I saw near KIMT (Yooper’s base). This dude was at 6000’ over Lake Michigan with an 85MPH groundspeed. This is a club owned aircraft but my God can you imagine the probabilities being tested here of pilot and mechanic error?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gsxrpilot]

17 minutes ago, tigers2007 said:

Yesterday evening I took a screenshot of a Flightaware track of this C150 I saw near KIMT (Yooper’s base). This dude was at 6000’ over Lake Michigan with an 85MPH groundspeed. This is a club owned aircraft but my God can you imagine the probabilities being tested here of pilot and mechanic error?

Hmmm a C150 that probably gets flown everyday and hasn't sat more than a day in it's life. The pilot likely a young guy building hours and therefore flying every couple of days.  I'd say there's a good possibility that both the plane and pilot have a better chance than a lot of us who fly nicer airplanes that sit and corrode while we fly once a month to try and keep some semblance of currency?

[tigers2007]

I think even Yooper Rocketman would think twice about crossing the icy and freezing Lk Michigan waters at FL060 even at 260MPH. This is crazy. I used to own a C150 and on the maiden flight home I swore I would one day own a Mooney.

Well, his/her 3hr flight across the lake sure beat the 10-11 hour drive! (Between Muskegon and Hancock Michigan)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kortopates]

Mechanical descions are made without pressure, on the ground, and often under circumstances where taking more time/care is compensated.

Interesting point you raise. But mechanical based accidents aren't solely mechanic error. In fact those are much rarer but I don't recall seeing stats on just what portion of mechanical failures are due to human error like not properly torquing cylinder nuts or crank rods etc. Some percentage could be in fact be attributed to us pilots from abusive ops to deferring necessary maintenance like departing with a know issue (.e.g only 1 mag). But a breakdown of mechanical based accident root causes would be most interesting since I am sure there are many valuable lessons to be learned for pilots as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ilovecornfields]

4 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

All the above.

Couldn’t agree more. I think we spend a lot of time on the mechanical aspects because they are are easy to evaluate and change. You can look for failing parts, trend oil data and carefully monitor your engine. The fact is, human behavior is much more difficult. It is difficult to teach good judgement and decision making. If anyone has read any of Jim Reason’s work on accidents and human error or looked into metacognition (thinking about how we think) you will see the combination of human factors and environmental factors that lead to accidents and how our flawed thought process often makes things worse instead of better.

Out brains are wired in certain ways so that we don’t always make good choices or respond appropriately to challenging circumstances. We often aren’t nearly as good as we think we are (Dunning-Kruger Effect) and most people are very poor at objectively evaluating risks (like my sister in law who won’t buy “dangerous plastic toys from China” but delays her children’s childhood vaccinations).

There was recently a post here about someone claiming several times to have a great understanding of weight and balance, yet not being able to correctly interpret the weight and balance charts and suggesting there was nothing wrong with loading a vintage Mooney over gross with an aft CG—because he had flown over gross before and did just fine. Presumably with unsuspecting passengers that most likely would have no idea what additional risk they were taking by this pilot’s poor decision making.

Not to go on a soapbox, but what that statistic shows is that YOU are the most dangerous part of the airplane and the one most prone to failure (and so am I!). Until we hold ourselves and each other to a higher standard and insist on better decision-making we will continue to the see the same preventable accidents occurring again and again.

[Browncbr1]

9 hours ago, tigers2007 said:

Yesterday evening I took a screenshot of a Flightaware track of this C150 I saw near KIMT (Yooper’s base). This dude was at 6000’ over Lake Michigan with an 85MPH groundspeed. This is a club owned aircraft but my God can you imagine the probabilities being tested here of pilot and mechanic error?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That may be the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen.  

[aviatoreb]

1 hour ago, Browncbr1 said:

That may be the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen.  

..and to prove things do go wrong.

A few years ago a local guy was crossing Lake Huron in a C150 at 2500 ft I think when he had an engine out.  Long story short he actually survived after 17 hours in the water over night.  Luckily he had that one-tough-dude thing going for him to make up a bit for the what-the-heck-were-thinking problem.  Flying west from Watertown, right where he went down was right where many of us suspect that plane had max range....

http://abcnews.go.com/US/crash-pilot-survives-17-hours-floating-lake-huron/story?id=14173080

 

[aviatoreb]

7 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

There was recently a post here about someone claiming several times to have a great understanding of weight and balance, yet not being able to correctly interpret the weight and balance charts and suggesting there was nothing wrong with loading a vintage Mooney over gross with an aft CG—because he had flown over gross before and did just fine. Presumably with unsuspecting passengers that most likely would have no idea what additional risk they were taking by this pilot’s poor decision making.

And that guy was proof of a principle that goes like this.  90% of the risk is concentrated on 10% of the people.  Our job here on this forum is to work hard to do all the right things and to try and not be one of those 10% of the people.  Those 10% do dumb things like loading bad CG over and over and getting away with it until...one day they don't.  They run out of fuel over Lake Huron. They fly into ice and then tell people that their plane is pretty good at carrying ice as if that is a strategy for handling ice - so they fly into ice again and again until...one day it doesn't work out.  They buzz their girl friends house.  The do ifr approaches below mins.  They run their engines with known deficiencies to save a few bucks.  They fly into thunderstorms since shooting the gap works out ok a few previous times.  And on and on....

Dont do those obviously stupid things and already your personal statistics will be quite a bit better than the average GA stats.  (Make your conditional probability of an incident given you don't do any of the above < the probability of an incident of a member of the population selected at random).  So Ill say again that the general stats include a few really major yahoos.  Don't be a yahoo.

After that, it takes a bit more work to lower your personal stat conditional probability a bit more, but again its worth it. Train hard, make good decisions, spend lots of money to maintain the airplane in tip top shape, read online forums and read faa circular materials, and aopa stuff too...

[tigers2007]

Looks like the pilot left KCMX after dark at 9PM and didn’t land at Cadillac Michigan until past midnight this morning (going from North to South). This is unreal folks. I get the heebie-jeebies just flying at night over the Upper Peninsula but couldn’t even imagine doing this at night over big water like that. Pilot is clearly not a time builder because they could have followed the shoreline...

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SSmooney]

You know it occurred to me while going through annual this year how much time is spent on the mechanical side of flying.  Oil analysis, compressions, is the dual mag attached with the proper torque, oil leak, CHTs, no metal in the filter, and on and on.  I'm wondering if we are really focusing on the 85% or just the15% too much.  There seems to be an underlying worry among the aviation community and general public of a mechanical failure while the stats show that YOU are about 6X more likely to be the real cause of a fatal crash than the mechanics of the aircraft.  "He was a great pilot and couldn't have messed up."  Well, guess what, there is an 85% chance he or she did mess up.  I have to say that personally I've never felt uncomfortable flying the Mooney but am I fully prepared to handle all situations.    I know this is kind of a boring topic but what do you guys think?
https://www.avbuyer.com/articles/insurance-biz-av/85-of-aviation-accidents-are-caused-by-pilot-error-28950

Ego problem of a pilot. Do it all and risk taking leads to this scenarios

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

[carusoam]

MS has a few threads covering topics in various levels of detail...

Several cover continuous education, like getting the next rating....

Many cover prominent and not so prominent accidents... my favorites are the ones that have a positive outcome...

Reading MS, you may find a new way of thinking about the challenges of flying...  or new ways of understanding what the FAA has been telling us for a while...

Another favorite of mine, how to take all this knowledge and put it to practical use.... Have you seen @DanM20C cover the flying issues related to CO? How to measure CO levels in the cockpit? That kind of thing...?

Then there are the tough lessons, we learned early on in primary training... but, for some reason didn’t maintain the importance of...

Patrick taught us... to know before you go, regarding density altitude and available runway length. College level flight training, with two similarly educated passengers on board...

Canopyman reminds us... engine outs will occur, landing straight ahead has a better chance of a survivable outcome than turning back towards the runway.

A couple of pilots have reminded us regarding various ways of running out of fuel have the same challenge but various outcomes.

How about power on stalls in a Mooney?  We have a guy... he detailed what and how it happened...  few have better or more training than he has...

Most around here agree avoiding ice, thunderstorms, VFR into IMC, and running out of fuel takes a combination of hardware, planning, and strong decision making skills...

Then there are the few that have reported engine out and not many good choices ahead.  Slow down, get down, avoid hard objects,  if you have a choice stay to the right.... broken wings are best on the left side...

Set your minimums and stick to them.  Make adjustments when necessary.  Adjust your minimums as required, know the brain can fail miserably when it does fail...

Plan how to overcome mechanical, piloting, and brain failures... always have a plan B, C, &....

If you want to get some good training...and meet with some Mooney pilots in person... consider MAPA training...

What we don’t know about the C150 flight over the lake... how frozen is that lake this time of year? How prepared was the pilot?  Dry suit? Raft? Extra portable radio? On a flight plan? In contact with ATC the whole way?

PP thoughts only, not a CFI or mechanic...

Best regards,

-a-

 

[201er]

2 hours ago, Browncbr1 said:

That may be the dumbest thing I’ve ever seen.  

Then I guess you haven't read much Mooneyspace! There's a ton of scenarios of people doing dumb things that actually manifested in undesirable or tragic outcomes instead of just hypothetical ones.

[Jerry 5TJ]

We humans are poor at evaluating relative risks:   We fear sharks on a fine day at the beach but drowning that afternoon is far more likely than feeling nibbles from a Carcharodon.  

Richard Collins wrote that if you will make flights in a piston twin you would not make in a single, you're focused on the wrong risks.  

 

 

 

[Bob - S50]

On the other hand, if we do not spend all that time checking/working on mechanical things, that 15% might become 20% or 25%.  We, to a certain extent, have control over what WE do.  We do not have control over the design and manufacture of parts so we have much less control over when things will break.

The superior pilot will use their superior judgement (and wallet) to avoid situations (mechanical failure) requiring their superior skill to save their superior ass.

Eliminate the risks we can.  Try to use good judgement to deal with the rest as we encounter them.

[McMooney]

I started training for my private at KCPU,

flying over lake Michigan at night seems a lot safer than doing the same over mountains. 

Edited March 4, 2018 by McMooney

[Mooneymite]

The airlines have a huge vested interest in squashing out human error.  Their efforts have included:

●  Greater dependence on automation/technology (a double edged sword).

●  Training. 

●  CRM.

●  Dual Dispatch.

●  Prayer (or, if you prefer, Good Luck).

[Browncbr1]

1 hour ago, Hyett6420 said:

So how much of the 85% of pilot error happend while fixing or dealing with a mechanical failure?

Yea, right after continuing on, then launching at night over ocean to Cuba right after maintenance..   

[Hank]

45 minutes ago, Mooneymite said:

The airlines have a huge vested interest in squashing out human error.  Their efforts have included:

●  Greater dependence on automation/technology (a double edged sword).

●  Training. 

●  CRM.

●  Dual Dispatch.

●  Prayer (or, if you prefer, Good Luck).

Don't forget:

• Turbine engines
• Multi-pilot crews
• Always IFR
• Frequent simulator trips for pilots
• Pressurization
• and more, not available to us simple Mooney pilots . . .

[aviatoreb]

30 minutes ago, Hank said:

Don't forget:

• Turbine engines
• Multi-pilot crews
• Always IFR
• Frequent simulator trips for pilots
• Pressurization
• and more, not available to us simple Mooney pilots . . .

They need to be better equipped and trained in one aspect- We have one MAJOR thing not available to them in the airlines.  We can cherry pick our departure times.  In the airlines, to a point, if the ticket says a month ahead of time that departure time is April 3 at 2:50pm, then by golly that's what they do.  In GA we must learn to be a little bit flakey. I hope to see you in the beginning of April sometime!  SO be sure to exert our major advantage which is following the sunshine.

[Hank]

2 hours ago, aviatoreb said:

I hope to see you in the beginning of April sometime!

Company is always welcome! What's the occasion? Hope you bring your refreshed Rocket, I'd like to see the finished product in the sun.