Pilot Error is 85%

[aviatoreb]

7 minutes ago, Hank said:

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.

Actually - I was saying that in general terms...

But now I'll say it in specific terms.  OK!  Someday I want to get to Eclectic - what a fun sounding town.  I've been to Hunstville.

 

Edited March 4, 2018 by aviatoreb

[Mooneymite]

5 hours 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 . . .

While turbine engines may fail less often, they can (and do occasionally) fail in spectacular manner.  We all have to be mentally prepared and trained for the big bang.

Multi-pilot crews?  You fly with Debra.  Use her (as I know you do) as a resouce for safety.

Always IFR....  if you have a ticket, use it.

Simulator trips?  More and more flight schools are getting Frasca, or Redbird sims.

Pressurization?  Hmmmm...cuts both ways.  One more thing to manage.

We also have freedom, in most cases, from outside pressures to complete flights.  We can think like a dispatcher when planning trips.

I think we can all incorporate these airline efforts into our own operations.

 

[Hank]

^ ^ ^ ^ ^  But we can't incorporate the airlines ability to climb over weather, fly as close to weather as they do or manage crosswinds as strong as they do (partly due to our much lower landing speed where crosswind is a larger fraction, partly because our light planes get pushed around more, partly because our gear wasnt designed to land with a 20-30° crab). And no matter how much Deborah flies beside me, she's not a second instrument-rated pilot, and neither one of  us wants her to copy an amended clearance in the clouds . . . . Ask her yourself, she has no desire to pursue a PPL.

[Tommy]

Hate to say this but your discussion is nothing but a logical fallacy called false dichotomy.

You presented these two options as if they are mutually exclusive for which they are not. 

You can get your plane in tip top condition AND be a proficient pilot at the same time.

[Mooney in Oz]

The following is more to do human factor weather decision making; With the availability of reasonable weather forecasts these days, I always have a study of all available weather forecasting info at least 4 days beforehand. Even looking at a simple synoptic chart that far out, you should have a good idea what to expect.

Sometimes the best solution might be to not get out of bed that morning.  

I read somewhere once that the sun will mostly shine on the wreckage the next day.

Victor

[mike_elliott]

The guy who tunes up probably more Mooneys than anyone realizes that he also needs a tune up. Far too often we spend countless $$ and time on the mechanical health of our flying program only to ignore the most critical piece of safe flight, ourselves.  Dmax, Ill see you soon!

[steingar]

Personally, I really think participating in aviation fora like this improves the nut at the wheel.  Keeps your head in the game when you aren't flying.

And how'd Flight Aware get my radar track from that trip?  I thought I'd turned that blasted transponder off!

[aviatoreb]

15 minutes ago, steingar said:

Personally, I really think participating in aviation fora like this improves the nut at the wheel.  Keeps your head in the game when you aren't flying.

And how'd Flight Aware get my radar track from that trip?  I thought I'd turned that blasted transponder off!

There was a study done once at COPA - which is the Cirrus owners group parallel to this one the Mooney forum, that by the study anyway that those participating actively in the forum had crash statistics four times better than the general population of Cirrus owners.

Now this alone does not say that the mere act of participating on a forum will improve your statistics since it is a correlation study which cannot distinguish to causation, since it is likely the kind of personality that goes out of the way to participate in a forum like this also carries the traits of a better behaving pilot....but in any case, here I am!

[DXB]

22 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

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

Accidents where there is  interplay between a serious but non-catastrophic mechanical issue and the pilot's subsequent actions are laid at the feet of the pilot by this aggregate stat.  A classic example is vac pump failure in IMC for a pilot not proficient in partial panel leading to loss of control.  Maintaining partial panel proficiency is a worthy goal, but how many pilots with full time non-aviation jobs are realistically able to do so? Many experienced folks including this 4000 hr ATP couldn't hack it https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20160503X70529&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FA.  It would be delusional to have confidence in my ability to perform well under similar circumstances. Now there are robust back up AI options at modest cost, so it's easy to build in the redundancy that prevents ever being without a functioning AI.  Time spent focusing on ones aircraft systems is well spent in this case. Of course the details of each accident dictate the potential yield from better pilot knowledge and training vs. focus on the aircraft. My point is merely that a lot of complexity underlies the 85% stat.

[wishboneash]

Perhaps the following route (or variations thereof) would have mitigated the risks somewhat? The "night" factor is another unknown making both choices equally bad I guess (mountains/trees vs. water/ice landing).

[tigers2007]

I tried to find an email address to the club to give the pilot a salute but couldn’t find one. They have a nice web site though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[steingar]

6 hours ago, DXB said:

Accidents where there is  interplay between a serious but non-catastrophic mechanical issue and the pilot's subsequent actions are laid at the feet of the pilot by this aggregate stat.  A classic example is vac pump failure in IMC for a pilot not proficient in partial panel leading to loss of control.  Maintaining partial panel proficiency is a worthy goal, but how many pilots with full time non-aviation jobs are realistically able to do so? Many experienced folks including this 4000 hr ATP couldn't hack it https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20160503X70529&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FA.  It would be delusional to have confidence in my ability to perform well under similar circumstances. Now there are robust back up AI options at modest cost, so it's easy to build in the redundancy that prevents ever being without a functioning AI.  Time spent focusing on ones aircraft systems is well spent in this case. Of course the details of each accident dictate the potential yield from better pilot knowledge and training vs. focus on the aircraft. My point is merely that a lot of complexity underlies the 85% stat.

That crash was heartbreaking.  Part of staying safe is also ADM.  He could have made it to VFR conditions, he had the fuel.  I think he was so intent on getting home it didn't even occur to him.  Once I get my IR I think I have a plan in place for vacuum failure.  Give myself a new transponder code and request vectors to VFR conditions.

The nice thing is most of our tablets can give us a nice panel at need which is sufficient to do the trick.

[kortopates]

2 hours ago, steingar said:

That crash was heartbreaking.  Part of staying safe is also ADM.  He could have made it to VFR conditions, he had the fuel.  I think he was so intent on getting home it didn't even occur to him.  Once I get my IR I think I have a plan in place for vacuum failure.  Give myself a new transponder code and request vectors to VFR conditions.

The nice thing is most of our tablets can give us a nice panel at need which is sufficient to do the trick.

Before you complete your IFR training you'll be able to handle this emergency very well, you have to be to be recommended for the check ride. The problem IMO is two fold, first its not uncommon for IFR pilots to stop practicing partial panel approaches  - in fact its the norm. The proficient IFR pilots, those that train for and get regular IPC's do tend to maintain their partial panel skills. But these days, as its been said many times before, adequate backups come in many affordable forms these days. if you're going to fly IMC you really need one!

The second problem though IMO is complacency exhibited by many pilots that feel they don't need to train rigorously enough to survive these kind of emergencies because they'll say they'll never launch with hard IFR conditions. Well this accident is the classic example of how hard IFR conditions find you when you least expect it. This Bonanza broke up from being over stressed after descending only about a thousand feet into the layer - on his second attempt. Neither he nor the controller seemed to take the situation very seriously. The pilot could have at least done many things to reduce his workload having lost his gyro's (except for the Turn coordinator), but it doesn't appear he even slowed down.  

Edited March 5, 2018 by kortopates

[Mooney in Oz]

This Bonanza accident prompted my memory of a similar accident here in Australia that involved a Mooney M20J that occurred on October 3 1997, at night over an outback area in pitch black conditions.  The Mooney was fitted with a vacuum operated attitude indicator, directional indicator and the pilot's only backup was the electric turn coordinator.  The Pilot broadcast his instruments were failing and attempted a diversion.  Sadly, 3 souls perished as a result.

The investigation revealed clear evidence of a vacuum pump failure.

Furthermore, the Mooney had flown 1,248 hours and 7 years on the same vacuum pump until it's last periodic inspection some 2 months before the accident.  Obviously nothing was done about the vacuum pump at that inspection.

The only differences between this and the Bonanza accident was the Bonanza broke up on the way down in IMC, the Mooney remained intact until ground impact and was in pitch black conditions at night.  Same failure and same result.

For those who wish to read the analysis:  https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1997/aair/aair199703221/

Victor

[Andy95W]

Absolutely the best selling point for STEC autopilots is that they're rate based, so they use the turn coordinator.  If my vacuum pump fails, the autopilot will fly the airplane, not allow more than a standard rate turn, and will hold altitude.  If you have GPSS, it will even fly a full approach.

[steingar]

14 hours ago, kortopates said:

Before you complete your IFR training you'll be able to handle this emergency very well, you have to be to be recommended for the check ride. The problem IMO is two fold, first its not uncommon for IFR pilots to stop practicing partial panel approaches  - in fact its the norm. The proficient IFR pilots, those that train for and get regular IPC's do tend to maintain their partial panel skills. But these days, as its been said many times before, adequate backups come in many affordable forms these days. if you're going to fly IMC you really need one!  

Once I have the IR I'm going forward under the assumption that I can't.  It isn't unreasonable, the guy in the Bonanza was a 4K hour ATP.  Same thing in the Wellstone crash.  Thing is, I fly a Mooney, which goes really fast a long way on very little gas.  Wherever I am, I should be able to make it to VFR conditions somewhere.

[INA201]

On 3/4/2018 at 11:26 PM, Tommy said:

Hate to say this but your discussion is nothing but a logical fallacy called false dichotomy.

You presented these two options as if they are mutually exclusive for which they are not. 

You can get your plane in tip top condition AND be a proficient pilot at the same time.

I agree to an extent.  The 85% to me is a combination of mechanics, avionics, proficiency, and frankly just all around reflexive experience.  A fellow named Malcolm Gladwell coined an interesting term called "deliberate practice."  "Deliberate practice," is defined as follows. 

They defined deliberate practice as: repetitive performance of intended cognitive or psychomotor skills. rigorous skills assessment. specific information feedback. better skills performance.  

Seems like most of us are practicing our skills at flying but in my case I don't feel that I am pushing to be the best pilot in all situations.  It's a lot more fun to just fly around than to deliberately train yourself in multiple scenarios. 

I'm a numbers guy so if there is  approximately 1 fatal accident in 100,000 hours of flying then what do I have to do personally to reduce that to say .25 for my family or 1 in 400,000 hours.  Obviously avoiding the pitfalls below is a start. The numbers are for human issues and letters mechanical.  Obviously the 85% 15% argument numbers are intertwined because one often leads to the other.

1.  Loss of control in flight                                           A.  Engine failure

2.  Controlled flight into terrain                                   B.  Fuel Contamination

3.  VFR into IMC                                                            C.  System failure ex. attitude indicator goes out which could lead to #1

4.  Fuel exhaustion                                                       D.  Airframe component failure, rare for us.

5.  Systems failure

6.  Midair collisions

7.  Thunderstorms

A lot of these items can be helped with a backup attitude indicator, backup alternator, handheld radio, traffic awareness ADSB, terrain awareness, etc.  The elusive engine failure is the one that is a trick to prevent, predict, and always be prepared for IMOP.

 

 

[jlunseth]

Well, pardon me, but I am a little skeptical of the statistics.  I have read quite a few of the reports.  Some of them read like “engine blew up due to loose bolt, pilot failed to execute safe engine off-field landing, pilot at fault.”  When the investigators are pre-disposed to look for human error, what do you suppose they are going to find?  Don’t get me wrong, there are lots of pilots who are candidates for a Darwin award.  But finding a mechanic who doesn’t try to kill you is a major priority for me.  One in-air system failure due to missassembly or missed diagnosis is one too many for me.