6 ms·

I got my glider license at 16 and private at 17. Majority of accidents are human error. Though yes an accident with a plane is much costlier than one with a car

I got my glider license at 16 and private at 17. Majority of accidents are human error. Though yes an accident with a plane is much costlier than one with a car. I encourage you to read NTSB accident reports. The work the investigators do and the reports they assemble are unparalleled. There are also good parallels to complex systems in general.

gpm 3mo ago
It seems like unjustifiable hubris to assume that I'm significantly less susceptible to human error than the average person that decides to become a pilot.
- applfanboysbgon 3mo ago
  If you're even thinking about the danger, it's absolutely justifiable to believe you're above the average already. The average person has zero regard for their own safety; governments have to literally force people to wear seatbelts in cars or helmets on motorcycles because they won't do it without threat of financial penalty.
  - toss1 3mo ago
    Indeed most of them wont do it without threat OTOH, there are those, particularly those who actually get training and practice in the high-performance zone, who realize the physics of the situation, and feel positively naked driving out without a seatbelt/harness, or helmet where appropriate.
  - tracerbulletx 3mo ago
    "the average person that decides to become a pilot." I don't know if this was added in an edit, but it doesn't currently say the average person. I'm pretty sure the average person trying to become a pilot thinks about the danger.
    - applfanboysbgon 3mo ago
      It wasn't added in an edit. I simply don't believe there's a meaningful difference. "The average person who decides to ride a motorcycle" still will not wear a helmet without government intervention, and I don't see any evidence that the average pilot is any different. As others point out, the causes of pilot fatalities are recorded for review, and indicate that a similar level of carelessness can be found in many pilots, who eg. choose to fly in inclement weather when not doing so was an option, and pay for it with their lives. You don't need to be some incredible aviation ace to minimise the risks, you simply need to actually care about your own safety and make conscious decisions not to engage in wantonly reckless behaviour.
  - cucumber3732842 3mo ago
    This strikes me as the kind of thing certain parts of the internet tell themselves to justify a feeling of superiority but probably isn't true. The guy who lives a dangerous life and has a ton of near misses probably thinks about it a lot more than average but it's not gonna change his behavior so thinking about it really isn't worth anything.
    - applfanboysbgon 3mo ago
      I suggest looking up statistics about seatbelt usage rates before legislation. I think you are underestimating how low the bar for personal safety is. In fact, the point I am making is explicitly not about being superior. You don't have to be an amazing driver/rider/pilot, you simply have to give a single fuck about your safety. Most people just don't.
- EvanAnderson 3mo ago
  I think you can take steps to inoculate yourself to some extent. My father subscribed to a newsletter that summarized NTSB general aviation mishap reports when he got his Private Pilot license back in the late 80s. I read them too and was astonished at how many mishaps were very bad judgement calls made by pilots-- flying when the weather wasn't fit, not checking fuel levels, flying after having experienced engine trouble, etc. I think it should be required reading for every new pilot.
- wolvoleo 3mo ago
  Most human error happens because pilots knowingly ignore safety. "Get-there-itis" for example. You really wanna get home but the weather is an edge case. If you were flying for fun you would stay on the ground but you convince yourself it's not that bad. That kinda thing. Or an engine running a bit rough, "but it's probably ok I'll have it checked next week". What you need is discipline to say no. That's the root cause of most of these errors. And yes that can be learned. Every flying club has a few of these people that are talked about in hushed tones at the end of the day when the beers come out. And almost never was the problem their flying skill. Even if it was it's usually something preventable too. Trying to fix an approach when going around would have been the clear choice. Letting mistakes pile up and not restarting from a known safe position.
  - crote 3mo ago
    But as they already said: unjustifiable hubris to assume it can't happen to you. Humans make mistakes all. the. time., and you're a human. It is pretty much guaranteed that you are making the exact same kind of mistakes in your day-to-day life. It just doesn't kill you because a broken car merely leaves you stranded and a broken pipe in your home merely causes some financial damage. Do the same with flying and you'll crash so you'll die. In my opinion private planes should be treated like they are actively trying to kill you, and it is only a matter of time before you will become complacent and make a mistake.
    - cpncrunch 3mo ago
      Most of the time it's the decisions that kill, rather than pure mistakes. It's possible to mitigate that risk. Good decisions (such as using checklists) can also mitigate some of the mistakes. Of course when you're dealing with a light twin with geared turbocharged engines, there are additional risks from mechanical failures (such as engine fires), as well as mistakes that can happen when addressing an engine failure (shutting down the wrong engine, getting too slow and doing a Vmc roll, etc). To be honest I would never fly in any light twin other than a Seminole (which I did my multi rating in).
    - wolvoleo 3mo ago
causal 3mo ago
Too many people read "human error" as "human preventable" rather than "a thing you will also do because you are human"
- user_7832 3mo ago
  Typically, in places like NTSB reports (or GA - private aviation - accidents in general), it often is human preventable. But the thing is different people have very different tolerance limits. Pilot A might skip flying if the weather looks bad. Pilot B might go "well the storm's actually only at x location on my route, I'll fly around it". Pilot C might insist on more fuel but take the flight. I'm not pretending it's possible to avoid (all) accidents with enough care - but if you look at NTSB stats, a vast majority of accidents were things that were quite easily avoidable. Getting an instrument rating, flying in a plane with a weather radar that can go high (pressurized, beyond 40,000 feet or whereabouts), having another spare pilot and spare engine, and following the "big boy" scheduled airline (part 121) protocols and rules and minimums will almost certainly help avoid 50%+ (very conservatively) of GA accidents causes. Yes, you still need to be careful and not fall victim to things like Get-there-itis (which pushes pilots to fly when they shouldn't because they want to get there). However... it's a swiss cheese model of accident avoidance. Remove as many factors from your side as you can, do your checklists, IMSAFE etc, and you're very likely to be (physically) okay. Oh, and get a Cirrus with a parachute while we're at it. They've got auto land on their new planes too iirc.
  - causal 3mo ago
    I think it's important to multiply "likelihood of the human making a mistake" by "how many times the human must avoid a mistake". If your hobby presents 100 avoidable-but-life-threatening mistakes an hour, it's a dangerous hobby.
    - applfanboysbgon 3mo ago
      Driving a car presents 100 avoidable-but-life-threatening-potential-mistakes an hour. I'm personally exceptionally risk-averse and avoid cars for that reason, but I don't think that level of risk aversion necessarily needs to be typical. It's certainly worth pointing out that a safety-conscious person can significantly reduce the risk of a given activity, even if they can't eliminate it completely. And, to be honest, I'd rather encourage risk-aware pilots to take up the hobby! Airliner pilots have to come from somewhere, and I'd prefer if my airline pilot was one who considered the risks of flying and did it anyways rather than having an airline pilot who is totally reckless and simply doesn't care about risks.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

gpm 3mo ago

It seems like unjustifiable hubris to assume that I'm significantly less susceptible to human error than the average person that decides to become a pilot.

applfanboysbgon 3mo ago
If you're even thinking about the danger, it's absolutely justifiable to believe you're above the average already. The average person has zero regard for their own safety; governments have to literally force people to wear seatbelts in cars or helmets on motorcycles because they won't do it without threat of financial penalty.
- toss1 3mo ago
  Indeed most of them wont do it without threat OTOH, there are those, particularly those who actually get training and practice in the high-performance zone, who realize the physics of the situation, and feel positively naked driving out without a seatbelt/harness, or helmet where appropriate.
- tracerbulletx 3mo ago
  "the average person that decides to become a pilot." I don't know if this was added in an edit, but it doesn't currently say the average person. I'm pretty sure the average person trying to become a pilot thinks about the danger.
  - applfanboysbgon 3mo ago
    It wasn't added in an edit. I simply don't believe there's a meaningful difference. "The average person who decides to ride a motorcycle" still will not wear a helmet without government intervention, and I don't see any evidence that the average pilot is any different. As others point out, the causes of pilot fatalities are recorded for review, and indicate that a similar level of carelessness can be found in many pilots, who eg. choose to fly in inclement weather when not doing so was an option, and pay for it with their lives. You don't need to be some incredible aviation ace to minimise the risks, you simply need to actually care about your own safety and make conscious decisions not to engage in wantonly reckless behaviour.
- cucumber3732842 3mo ago
  This strikes me as the kind of thing certain parts of the internet tell themselves to justify a feeling of superiority but probably isn't true. The guy who lives a dangerous life and has a ton of near misses probably thinks about it a lot more than average but it's not gonna change his behavior so thinking about it really isn't worth anything.
  - applfanboysbgon 3mo ago
    I suggest looking up statistics about seatbelt usage rates before legislation. I think you are underestimating how low the bar for personal safety is. In fact, the point I am making is explicitly not about being superior. You don't have to be an amazing driver/rider/pilot, you simply have to give a single fuck about your safety. Most people just don't.
EvanAnderson 3mo ago
I think you can take steps to inoculate yourself to some extent. My father subscribed to a newsletter that summarized NTSB general aviation mishap reports when he got his Private Pilot license back in the late 80s. I read them too and was astonished at how many mishaps were very bad judgement calls made by pilots-- flying when the weather wasn't fit, not checking fuel levels, flying after having experienced engine trouble, etc. I think it should be required reading for every new pilot.
wolvoleo 3mo ago
Most human error happens because pilots knowingly ignore safety. "Get-there-itis" for example. You really wanna get home but the weather is an edge case. If you were flying for fun you would stay on the ground but you convince yourself it's not that bad. That kinda thing. Or an engine running a bit rough, "but it's probably ok I'll have it checked next week". What you need is discipline to say no. That's the root cause of most of these errors. And yes that can be learned. Every flying club has a few of these people that are talked about in hushed tones at the end of the day when the beers come out. And almost never was the problem their flying skill. Even if it was it's usually something preventable too. Trying to fix an approach when going around would have been the clear choice. Letting mistakes pile up and not restarting from a known safe position.
- crote 3mo ago
  But as they already said: unjustifiable hubris to assume it can't happen to you. Humans make mistakes all. the. time., and you're a human. It is pretty much guaranteed that you are making the exact same kind of mistakes in your day-to-day life. It just doesn't kill you because a broken car merely leaves you stranded and a broken pipe in your home merely causes some financial damage. Do the same with flying and you'll crash so you'll die. In my opinion private planes should be treated like they are actively trying to kill you, and it is only a matter of time before you will become complacent and make a mistake.
  - cpncrunch 3mo ago
    Most of the time it's the decisions that kill, rather than pure mistakes. It's possible to mitigate that risk. Good decisions (such as using checklists) can also mitigate some of the mistakes. Of course when you're dealing with a light twin with geared turbocharged engines, there are additional risks from mechanical failures (such as engine fires), as well as mistakes that can happen when addressing an engine failure (shutting down the wrong engine, getting too slow and doing a Vmc roll, etc). To be honest I would never fly in any light twin other than a Seminole (which I did my multi rating in).
  - wolvoleo 3mo ago

causal 3mo ago

Too many people read "human error" as "human preventable" rather than "a thing you will also do because you are human"

user_7832 3mo ago
Typically, in places like NTSB reports (or GA - private aviation - accidents in general), it often is human preventable. But the thing is different people have very different tolerance limits. Pilot A might skip flying if the weather looks bad. Pilot B might go "well the storm's actually only at x location on my route, I'll fly around it". Pilot C might insist on more fuel but take the flight. I'm not pretending it's possible to avoid (all) accidents with enough care - but if you look at NTSB stats, a vast majority of accidents were things that were quite easily avoidable. Getting an instrument rating, flying in a plane with a weather radar that can go high (pressurized, beyond 40,000 feet or whereabouts), having another spare pilot and spare engine, and following the "big boy" scheduled airline (part 121) protocols and rules and minimums will almost certainly help avoid 50%+ (very conservatively) of GA accidents causes. Yes, you still need to be careful and not fall victim to things like Get-there-itis (which pushes pilots to fly when they shouldn't because they want to get there). However... it's a swiss cheese model of accident avoidance. Remove as many factors from your side as you can, do your checklists, IMSAFE etc, and you're very likely to be (physically) okay. Oh, and get a Cirrus with a parachute while we're at it. They've got auto land on their new planes too iirc.
- causal 3mo ago
  I think it's important to multiply "likelihood of the human making a mistake" by "how many times the human must avoid a mistake". If your hobby presents 100 avoidable-but-life-threatening mistakes an hour, it's a dangerous hobby.
  - applfanboysbgon 3mo ago
    Driving a car presents 100 avoidable-but-life-threatening-potential-mistakes an hour. I'm personally exceptionally risk-averse and avoid cars for that reason, but I don't think that level of risk aversion necessarily needs to be typical. It's certainly worth pointing out that a safety-conscious person can significantly reduce the risk of a given activity, even if they can't eliminate it completely. And, to be honest, I'd rather encourage risk-aware pilots to take up the hobby! Airliner pilots have to come from somewhere, and I'd prefer if my airline pilot was one who considered the risks of flying and did it anyways rather than having an airline pilot who is totally reckless and simply doesn't care about risks.

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]