How safe is G.A. flying?

[John Baker]

I have had that question asked of me, or at least implied, that what I am doing is just flat out dangerous, flying small airplanes.

I usually respond with my own invented analogy that more pilots are killed driving their cars than flying their airplanes. I have no clue how true that is, but it seems to work.

The other one I use is that if newspapers reported auto accidents the way they report airplane accidents, they would need a fork lift to deliver your morning paper.

Any thoughts on this common subject, or am I beating a dead horse?

John

 

[wabower]

I think it's the latter. Flying is statistically much more dangerous. I think (but can't conclusively prove) that a pilot can reduce the odds to about the same as driving by avoiding the dumbarse stuff that make the rate so high. OTOH, the auto accident rate would be much less if the drivers would do the same.

The good news is that after 20-30 years they stop asking.

I have had that question asked of me, or at least implied, that what I am doing is just flat out dangerous, flying small airplanes.

I usually respond with my own invented analogy that more pilots are killed driving their cars than flying their airplanes. I have no clue how true that is, but it seems to work.

The other one I use is that if newspapers reported auto accidents the way they report airplane accidents, they would need a fork lift to deliver your morning paper.

Any thoughts on this common subject, or am I beating a dead horse?

John

 

[KennyFlys]

With the uninformed or flat-out ignorant, it's often beating a dead horse.

I was a self-employed courier through 2008 in both Denver and Atlanta. During mid-2008 when I began working on my CFI ticket, the subject of flying came up flying came up with a few folks at one office. The weather that day had Atlanta socked in with bases around a thousand along with rain and rain mist. It wasn't a pleasant day.

I simply said, "It's safer up there than it is down here." I then disclosed I was a pilot with an instrument rating and currently working on an instructor certificate. One girl came out with a very similar question, "Isn't that really dangerous?"

I replied with, "I'd rather be a thousand feet up in the soup any day than down on that interstate where I have no clue how someone is going to react."

I went on to say something like, "Up there, I know more about what is happening around me. I know what my options are and I have more space to react to the situation. Down here, I'm traveling down the interstate at seventy-plus with someone three feet away while talking on a cell phone, not paying a dang bit of attention to what's going on around them. I never know what they're going to do. What would be your choice?"

They had a hard time arguing the point.

 

[tonycondon]

the fatal accident rate is somewhat comparable to the risk associated with riding a motorcycle.

the difference is that when you are in the air, you are probably going to crash because of something you did (or didnt do) when you are on the ground (especially on a motorcycle) your crash could very well be due to or at least influenced by the other vehicles speeding by in the opposite direction a few feet to your side.

So pilots can take a lot of personal steps to minimize their own risk, while drivers always have that unknown of the 'other guy'

 

[sba55]

What Tony said.

It's exactly as safe as you make it. The range available to you is much greater than with any other mode of transportation. You can make it extremely unsafe, or extremely safe. If the latter, you can make it much, much safer than driving.

It's really hard to give a useful answer to this question because it depends. G.A. safety statistics don't discriminate much, and as a result, are not nearly as good a predictor of actual risk as car safety statistics where the possible range of "safety" is much smaller.

-Felix

 

[mantakos]

For me, the primary answer to this question is "the stats", which gives you the actual average risk we experience. The Nall report is a good place to find that:
http://www.aopa.org/asf/publications/nall.html

This represents the "average risk", not the "hypothetically possible situation" risk or the "I'm above average, and so is everybody else" risk, but the "what we all actually did last year" risk.

Hour to hour, or mile to mile, GA flying is much more dangerous than driving a car, on average. If you drive a lot, and fly very little, then your overall chance of dying in a car might exceed your chance of dying in a plane. For me, assuming the 'average risk', I'm more likely to go in a plane than a car, but I'm still far, far more likely to go of a heart attack.

So if somebody asks you if flying is dangerous, feel free to point out any aspects of their lifestyle that suggest a heightened chance of heart disease (e.g. overweight, out of shape, little exercise, etc). In other words: "eating a donut? Aren't those things dangerous?"
-harry

 

[EdFred]

Ive crashed a motorcycle and a car both more than once, but have yet to crash a plane.

 

[mantakos]

Ive crashed a motorcycle and a car both more than once, but have yet to crash a plane.

When comparing auto to GA, the stats suggest that cars are more crashy, but the crashes are far, far more survivable.

1 in 5 GA accidents entail fatalities. Compare this to about 1 in 160 for cars.
-harry

 

[Geico266]

The fatal accident rate is somewhat comparable to the risk associated with riding a motorcycle.

That's what I tell people who ask. You can ride a motor cycle across the country and never even have a close call, or you can get on one and kill yourself by the end of the drive way. It is all on how you approach the ride.

 

[Geico266]

Ive crashed a motorcycle and a car both more than once, but have yet to crash a plane.

I've done all 3.

Just call me Geico, the crash test dummy.

 

[Dean]

Life Insurance companies must think it is more dangerous to fly in small airplanes, try and get a quote as a pilot or flight crew. If you have less than 200 hours, most won't even talk to you. AIG was the only one that would insure me, all the others wanted to add an airplane exclusion clause.

 

[Ken Ibold]

the fatal accident rate is somewhat comparable to the risk associated with riding a motorcycle.

This appears to have become the generally acceptable parallel, but you have to keep in mind a few caveats. The road stats are based on miles-driven assumptions made by the govt, and the aviation stats are based on hours-flown stats made by a different branch of the govt. So there are errors introduced by those assumptions. Then, those errors are compounded when you translate hours flown to miles flown in order to make the rates have the same units.

So, the stats are very, very fuzzy, but it's the best we have at the moment (IMNSHO). If mechanics were required to report hours flown after each annual inspection, we'd have a better handle on it, but also another layer of bureaucracy.

 

[gismo]

When comparing auto to GA, the stats suggest that cars are more crashy, but the crashes are far, far more survivable.

1 in 5 GA accidents entail fatalities. Compare this to about 1 in 160 for cars.
-harry

That might change if you included hangar rash (the aviation equivalent of automotive fender benders), but only to the extent of increasing the total accident count thereby diluting the ratio of fatals to accidents.

Personally, I don't think there's any realistic way to compare the saftey of flying "small airplanes" with any sort of driving as the risks are so different. IMO that's a lot like trying to compare the risk of bathtub injuries to boating accidents. Like others have posted, in general aviation the pilot has nearly 100% control of the risk level vs the automobile driver or worse yet the motorcyclist who are at the mercy of everyone else and that's a comfort to me. If you eliminate all the purely pilot induced serious accidents such as fuel exhaustion/starvation, VFR into IMC, and busted approach minimums you'd probably knock off 90% of the aviation fatalities. Applying the same concept to automobiles I'd bet the resulting drop in fatalities would be less than 25%. How many times have you heard about some poor family that got killed when their minivan was in a head on collision with or T-boned by a drunk or otherwise unconscious driver? Compare that to the risk of a mid-air and I think you'd find that in such cases the airplane is much safer.

But John's OP really asked two questions, the other being something along the lines of "how do you convince your non-flying acquaintences that you're not some sort of suicidal daredevil just because you fly those dangerous small planes?" And the answer to that one is simple, you don't, for most such folks this effort is futile. To begin with IME many of that opinion are deathly afraid of flying in anything smaller than a 747 and even flight in that monster is barely tolerable. In fact, the very notion that in aviation larger = safer is without any real basis. It probably is true that fewer large airliners have crashed but that's likely because they have less exposure to takeoffs and landings where the risk is highest plus the fact that they are typically flown by the most experienced crews and only use large airports with the best facilities (approaches and runways). Try getting just that small point across to a fearful flier and you'll probably have as much success in convincing sharks not to eat other fish.

 

[Everskyward]

When comparing auto to GA, the stats suggest that cars are more crashy, but the crashes are far, far more survivable.

Anecdotally, I know more people who have been in traffic accidents than in airplane accidents, but I also know more people who have been killed in airplane accidents than in traffic accidents. It goes without saying that I know far more drivers than I do pilots.

But John's OP really asked two questions, the other being something along the lines of "how do you convince your non-flying acquaintences that you're not some sort of suicidal daredevil just because you fly those dangerous small planes?" And the answer to that one is simple, you don't, for most such folks this effort is futile.

For whatever reason, I have not experienced a whole lot of this negative reaction to flying but maybe I tend to brush it off. I also don't talk about flying with many non-pilots unless someone specifically brings it up.

 

[John Baker]

From what I'm reading, I think the longer you fly, the less the issue is brought up by your non flying friends.

I'm at the point of agonizing about my check ride in a couple of weeks so I'm still getting it a lot more than my more experienced pilot friends.

I reckon once folks figure they can not save you from yourself, they just give up on the subject.

John

 

[Anthony]

I reckon once folks figure they can not save you from yourself, they just give up on the subject.

My family and friends don't really bring it up any longer either. I guess they figured if I haven't killed myself yet, I must at least half know what I am doing.

 

[Kaye]

My family and friends don't really bring it up any longer either. I guess they figured if I haven't killed myself yet, I must at least half know what I am doing.

When I excitedly told my sister of my first solo flight, her comment was....."Well, I guess that's safer than rock climbing." Never knew she was worried about that activity in my life.

 

[gkainz]

My family and friends don't really bring it up any longer either. I guess they figured if I haven't killed myself yet, I must at least half know what I am doing.

Hey - I've flown with you - I can vouch that you at least half know what you're doing!

 

[Anthony]

Hey - I've flown with you - I can vouch that you at least half know what you're doing!

Ha! Yeah, and miraculously lived to tell the tale.

 

[Henning]

I have had that question asked of me, or at least implied, that what I am doing is just flat out dangerous, flying small airplanes.

I usually respond with my own invented analogy that more pilots are killed driving their cars than flying their airplanes. I have no clue how true that is, but it seems to work.

The other one I use is that if newspapers reported auto accidents the way they report airplane accidents, they would need a fork lift to deliver your morning paper.

Any thoughts on this common subject, or am I beating a dead horse?

John

Dead horse for sure. It is hazardous, no doubt, on par with motorcycles. The greatest hazards are induced by cranium in rectum on the part of pilots though.

 

[dmccormack]

Pilots are typically right brained and thereby think statistics matter.

The non-aviator is not asking for a breakdown of the Nall Report.

This question is typically a search for assurance -- "Will *I* die if I do this? Will you die?"

Since the death rate is still 100%, the only honest answer is "Yes, you may die doing this."


We might stave off the inevitable, melancholy eventuality through education, practice, envelope-stretching, supberb maintenance, and superior judgement.

And then again...

Anyway, when someone asks, "How safe is flying?" you're better off finding out what they really mean. Maybe he/she just needs some assurance about how airplanes are maintained, what qualifications you possess, et cetera.

Save the statistical data dump for the one in a thousand that's really interested.

 

[poadeleted20]

When you really dig into the stats, most GA crashes are predictable. 80-85% involve pilot error, and when you look deeper, most of those involve pilots who broke rules deliberately and/or did foolish things by choice. I believe that for pilots who refuse to break rules by their own choice, and don't do things they feel would look dumb in an accident report, the odds of an accident go way, way down. Look at the corporate jet accident rate -- Part 91 GA, but comparable to the Part 121 air carriers despite higher risk in many regards.

OTOH, on the road, even if you do everything right, it's not that hard to get creamed by someone doing something dumb. That's why I feel safer in my plane than in my car.

 

[John Baker]

Pilots are typically right brained and thereby think statistics matter.

So, finally I understand why learning to fly has been so hard for me, I'm left brained. That clears it all up for me, thanks! :smile:

John

 

[gismo]

So, finally I understand why learning to fly has been so hard for me, I'm left brained. That clears it all up for me, thanks! :smile:

John

Dang, I've been "brained" on both sides more than once, I wonder what that explains.

 

[fgcason]

It is all on how you approach the ride.

It's also about how OTHER people approach your ride.

...And I think those two points is what it really comes down to.


If you're safe, proficient and don't do anything stupid, you're very safe in the air. The same can't be said on the ground due to the excessive numbers of incompetent self centered aggressive hostiles in close proximity that have no regard to safety.

 

[mantakos]

Save the statistical data dump for the one in a thousand that's really interested.

If 99.9% of our friends and family are complete idiots, then the presentation can be dumbed down to their level. But if you're the one who's the pilot, I think you should know the "real" answer, both because your passengers are climbing aboard based on trust in your judgment, and because this real answer is a good basis for forming your dumbed-down response (e.g. "in the same ballpark as riding a motorcycle").

All too often, the responses we hear to this question are platitudes ("at least I'll die doing something I love", "you gotta go some time", "I'm not afraid of dying, I'm afraid of not living!"), or else lies ("safer than driving a car!"), or bad logic ("in a car, some damn fool could crash into _us_!"). In all of these responses, what I hear is that the speaker really doesn't, himself, know the answer to the question.

But there is certainly wisdom in pointing out that your passengers might have specific worries (e.g. "what if the engine dies?", "what if the wings fall off?", "what if we run out of gas?"), and talking these over with your passenger, you may be able to reassure them by clearing up any misunderstandings.
-harry

 

[SCCutler]

When you really dig into the stats, most GA crashes are predictable. 80-85% involve pilot error, and when you look deeper, most of those involve pilots who broke rules deliberately and/or did foolish things by choice. I believe that for pilots who refuse to break rules by their own choice, and don't do things they feel would look dumb in an accident report, the odds of an accident go way, way down. Look at the corporate jet accident rate -- Part 91 GA, but comparable to the Part 121 air carriers despite higher risk in many regards.

OTOH, on the road, even if you do everything right, it's not that hard to get creamed by someone doing something dumb. That's why I feel safer in my plane than in my car.

I try to have safe OpSpecs for myself, and to be ready to break the chain at all opportunities. Avoid decisions which have "Aftermath Column" written all over them.

Life Insurance companies must think it is more dangerous to fly in small airplanes, try and get a quote as a pilot or flight crew. If you have less than 200 hours, most won't even talk to you. AIG was the only one that would insure me, all the others wanted to add an airplane exclusion clause.

I bought insurance through PIC Life, very competitive, no pilot exclusion.

 

[mantakos]

When you really dig into the stats, most GA crashes are predictable. 80-85% involve pilot error, and when you look deeper, most of those involve pilots who broke rules deliberately and/or did foolish things by choice.

For me, _THE_ big question is whether "accident pilots" are "us", but on our worst day, and in the absence of a favorable roll of the dice to save us from our poor decisions, or whether accident pilots are really "them", some class of pilots separate from us, with some grossly below average judgment abilities.

Your statement above is statistical in nature, and roughly says that over 40% of accidents are caused by pilots who deliberately broke rules or chose to be foolish. Unless you can claim to have data to support it, I'd have to call this a "hunch". The truth or falsehood of this hunch is, I think, an extremely important question, but I don't think we know the answer.

Regardless or its truth, the notion here seems to have both positive and negative aspects to it. I can see the benefit of the message "stay within the rules, don't do anything stupid", but I can also see the risk of "I'm not eligible for these risks, as I'm not one of the stupid ones".
-harry

 

[brcase]

Most people that ask aren't looking for a statistical analysis they are usually just asking an actual "pilot" is it as dangerous as the news media and TV often make it seem.

I think it is good to have some easily understood comparisons of the risks and also just the fact that we have researched the risk and can explain that we understand what the risks are will often alleviate many non-pilots fears. I also think it is prudent that as pilots we should be able to back up our claims that flying is relativily safe, but we really don't need to get into this with non-pilots.

The motorcycle comparison Tony used is an excellent one, it is easily understood. When I started instructing I also researched the statment "it is more dangerous to drive to the airport than to fly" After going through many NTSB reports and statistics I could find I determined it is probably true for flying on the airlines. Overall it is not at all true for GA flying, unless perhaps you are going to the airport on a Motorcycle. However I found that a large number of the accidents in GA are Cropduster accidents. By eliminating this activity that most of us don't do the accident rate get much better for the kind of GA flying we do. If we eliminate flying into bad weather it starts to get close to same as the automobile rate. So if you are a fair weather flying and don't fly close the ground the overall statistic is about the same as driving a car.

Admitedly it is nearly impossible to get an accurate comparison of the risks do to the limited amount of information available. Plus there are many different ways to define dangerous. For example, are they talking about Fatalities, Injuries or just accidents.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[alaskaflyer]

"...killed walking your doggie!"

 

[AWACSEng]

I know for sure that I am safer in an airplane than on the road because I acctualy pay attention to what I am doing while in an airplane. I can't say that for certainty of my driving habits. That is part of why my wife was so reluctant to fly with me. She said if I fly like I drive, that no way would she go. Took my CFI to convince her I'm OK at this.

 

[sba55]

Regardless or its truth, the notion here seems to have both positive and negative aspects to it. I can see the benefit of the message "stay within the rules, don't do anything stupid", but I can also see the risk of "I'm not eligible for these risks, as I'm not one of the stupid ones".
-harry

90% of accidents are pilot error. That's a hugely impressive number.

It is perfectly reasonable to think that you have eliminated most stupid decisions from your flying. If you do so, your risk goes down dramatically. In aviation, aggregate statistics span such wide range of pilots and activities. That's the first problem. Secondly, the action of those pilots has a much more direct effect on their safety vs. the actions of a driver.

When people ask me how safe flying is, I tell them that, as long as they fly with proficient pilots, it's by far the safest way to travel. The statistics, if anything, support that notion.

-Felix

 

[TMetzinger]

This is a tough question to answer honestly and accurately. The accident rate for GA is, as noted above, roughly similar to that of motorcycle operations. However, it's also true that pilot error is far and away the leading cause of GA accidents.

What that says to me is two things:
Pilot performance has a huge impact on GA safety (as Felix notes)
GA pilots have a relatively bad performance level, when looked on as a population.

So for a passenger getting on board a GA airplane with a typical GA pilot, the safety is about the same as getting on the back of a motorcycle with a typical motorcyclist.

For a passenger getting on board a GA airplane with YOU, all that can honestly be said is that your proficiency as an aviator can make it practically safer than driving a car, or much more dangerous than riding a motorcycle. And I think it's more important that you exercise good judgment based on an accurate knowledge of your skill levels than it is that you be the sharpest stick-and-rudder pilot at the airport.

 

[wabower]

I've been doing this stuff a long time, including reading accident reports and watching friends and acquaintences bite the dust over that time. Seems to me that you can almost know immediately whether you would be susceptible to the reported accidents. For example, buzzing won't get me. I might run into something that isn't marked on a chart or terrain warning system, but the low pass won't be a problem. Neither will VFR into IFR, flying drunk, running out of gas (unless something breaks) thunderstorms, icing or getthereitis. I won't be there for those events, so the chances of having something happen are nil.

I'm subject to all the taildragger-related issues, because that's what I choose to fly. So ground-loops, running off the side of the runway, ground visibility issues, all that stuff are always on my watch-out list. High surface winds are theoretically more problematic for me than for pilots who fly trikes, so it's possible that I miss flying on some days that other guys can safely handle. If the rubber band breaks at the wrong time, I could easily be landing in a less than ideal spot. Some days chicken, some days feathers.

For me, _THE_ big question is whether "accident pilots" are "us", but on our worst day, and in the absence of a favorable roll of the dice to save us from our poor decisions, or whether accident pilots are really "them", some class of pilots separate from us, with some grossly below average judgment abilities.

Your statement above is statistical in nature, and roughly says that over 40% of accidents are caused by pilots who deliberately broke rules or chose to be foolish. Unless you can claim to have data to support it, I'd have to call this a "hunch". The truth or falsehood of this hunch is, I think, an extremely important question, but I don't think we know the answer.

Regardless or its truth, the notion here seems to have both positive and negative aspects to it. I can see the benefit of the message "stay within the rules, don't do anything stupid", but I can also see the risk of "I'm not eligible for these risks, as I'm not one of the stupid ones".
-harry

 

[rottydaddy]

You just can't enlighten people who ask "that question", usually... I can tell the ones who are convinced "it's crazy- flying around in those little things" as soon as they ask.
But I usually try, anyway.
I just tell them the following:

-I feel safer, FWIW, up there than down here. Driving, walking city streets, taking trains, etc... I have had MANY more close calls doing those things than flying... and I tink percentage-wise it's still true (for me). There are so many "everyday" ways to die it's scary when you think about it.

-There's nothing intrinsically unsafe about an airplane, despite it's being up in the air most of the time.The vast majority of serious light-airplane accidents are definitely due to not mere "pilot error" ( a phrase which suggests "pilot's human limitations caused the crash"), but stuff ranging from hubris to flat-out stupidity. The die is usually cast before the flight begins, and usually there are contimuous opportunities to avert disaster... poor decision-making boosts the GA accident stats significantly.

-Statistically, flying light aircraft, including commercial ops, instrument flight, etc., is on a par with riding motorcycles... but if you take that seriously, you will find that the most dangerous thingto do is lie in bed, because more people have died lying in bed than doing anything else.

I don't usually say all of that, mind you... but it's all implied in "What- you wanna live forever?"

 

[mantakos]

90% of accidents are pilot error.

Well, let's say that in 90% of _fatal_ accidents (83% of accidents, overall), the cause is not mechanical. Since the plane was okay, we call these "pilot error".

The "question", really, is about the nature of this pilot error. We really want this to be "egregious pilot error", but I don't think the stats and NTSB reports support that. It's not like it's all pilots doing crazy stunts, and acting ridiculously recklessly. It isn't clear, to me, that these pilots "chose" to make bad decisions, that they knew they were choosing poorly, that they made decisions that we can claim to never "choose" to make.

It is perfectly reasonable to think that you have eliminated most stupid decisions from your flying.

But are these "stupid decisions" or just "bad decisions"? The difference is that we might claim to be able to make ourselves immune from "stupid decisions", but I'm not convinced that we can claim immunity from "bad decisions".

How do we know that the GA accident rate doesn't represent the rate at which we all make bad decisions, multiplied by the odds of a bad decision turning out badly (and thus becoming a "stupid decision"?)

In particular, every experienced pilot who has a "scare" story, e.g. a "Never Again" or "I Learned About Flying From That", is somebody who made a bad decision, but survived. Is the difference between this pilot and the guy in the NTSB report really one of judgment, or when the guy in the NTSB report made _his_ bad decision, did his dice roll turn up differently from ours?

When people ask me how safe flying is, I tell them that, as long as they fly with proficient pilots, it's by far the safest way to travel. The statistics, if anything, support that notion.

For GA, there simply exist no statistics to support that.
-harry

 

[Henning]

Dang, I've been "brained" on both sides more than once, I wonder what that explains.

Lots....

 

[sba55]

Well, let's say that in 90% of _fatal_ accidents (83% of accidents, overall), the cause is not mechanical. Since the plane was okay, we call these "pilot error".

The "question", really, is about the nature of this pilot error. We really want this to be "egregious pilot error", but I don't think the stats and NTSB reports support that. It's not like it's all pilots doing crazy stunts, and acting ridiculously recklessly. It isn't clear, to me, that these pilots "chose" to make bad decisions, that they knew they were choosing poorly, that they made decisions that we can claim to never "choose" to make.

Your premise is flawed. It doesn't really matter to me if an error is made due to sheer stupidity or due to lack of proficiency. The vast majority of P91 accidents occur to one or the other, and both are completely preventable.

But are these "stupid decisions" or just "bad decisions"? The difference is that we might claim to be able to make ourselves immune from "stupid decisions", but I'm not convinced that we can claim immunity from "bad decisions".

Nobody's claiming immunity. However, you can reduce or eliminate both stupid or bad decisions. The less they are obviously bad decisions at the time, the more proficiency it takes to avoid making them; nevertheless, if you're proficient enough, you can avoid them.

How do we know that the GA accident rate doesn't represent the rate at which we all make bad decisions, multiplied by the odds of a bad decision turning out badly (and thus becoming a "stupid decision"?)

We know because averages are just that.

In particular, every experienced pilot who has a "scare" story, e.g. a "Never Again" or "I Learned About Flying From That", is somebody who made a bad decision, but survived. Is the difference between this pilot and the guy in the NTSB report really one of judgment, or when the guy in the NTSB report made _his_ bad decision, did his dice roll turn up differently from ours?

It's not about making mistakes - we all do that. It's about mitigating the effects of those mistakes and not making additional bad decisions. With proficiency, you can do that.

For GA, there simply exist no statistics to support that.-harry

Sure there is. You can eliminate deadly decisions - see p121, say in the year 2005. You can do the same with p91 - just takes a lot of proficiency. Planes are planes. Eliminate 90% of our accidents and you're getting close to p121 levels of safety.

-Felix

 

[alaskaflyer]

There are plenty of extremely proficient, extremely dead pilots in the NTSB reports. While "proficiency" in itself is a good thing, and no doubt contributes to safety, it is by no means a silver bullet, and cannot prevent errors in judgment.

I wager that the successful part 121 safety record is due in part to an atmosphere where poor judgment has no place - both because pilot judgment has been largely replaced by opSpecs, and because poor judgment is punished severely.

 

[TMetzinger]

There are plenty of extremely proficient, extremely dead pilots in the NTSB reports. While "proficiency" in itself is a good thing, and no doubt contributes to safety, it is by no means a silver bullet, and cannot prevent errors in judgment.

I wager that the successful part 121 safety record is due in part to an atmosphere where poor judgment has no place - both because pilot judgment has been largely replaced by opSpecs, and because poor judgment is punished severely.

And the fact that in nearly all 121 and lots of 135 flying you have other qualified crewmen working with you, enhancing the likelihood of an error being detected and corrected early, thus breaking the accident chain.

If you look at GA and look at similar situations (flight instruction, two-person crews) where you have a qualified pilot monitoring while one is flying, the record looks better.

To me, a proficient pilot is not merely someone with the good airplane handling skills - his ADM skills need to be as good or better. Good ADM can often compensate for less than perfect flying skills, but the reverse is not true as often.