Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
By Ebbie 2003
#1672799
I agree the sentiment.

I like my flying hobby - there is some risk to be mitigated - but the risk is part of the attraction.

Not too sure about the rest of you but generally I have a mundane and very safe life - hobbies are something I do for variety.

So I open water scuba dive and I fly my plane (not in that order!) - there is risk, but given my otherwise safe life why ever would I want hobbies with no risk of death while doing them?

That said, rumour has it that more people die each year playing golf and course fishing - of course there are more participants. Next time someone dies doing one of those I hope to see questions in parliament and a push to see them banned:)
By Harry Brown
#1672801
tomshep wrote:Exactly. Or, I can take a calculated risk and drive to the airfield.


Calculated Risk? Tom when is the last time you read the Highway Code, be honest!
User avatar
By Lockhaven
#1672807
Harry Brown wrote:
Waveflyer wrote:
tomshep wrote:All flying accidents are preventable........

.....and to be prevented in the future they have to be investigated, publicised, digested, understoood and continually resurrected.


This is the basis of Threat & Error Management that has supposed to have be on the PPL Syllabus for the last 20 years I know of.

The problem with saying ALL flying accidents are preventable is misleading and can give a false sense of security. For instance I could say as all accidents are preventable I do not need a fire truck at my airfield because Ive taken every precaution possible to prevent a landing or take off accident. All of those precautions that ive taken are as a result of knowledge Ive gained through personal experience and knowledge Ive acquired though study. However on landing the tube in my starboard wheel bursts and I go off the runway and you know the rest.

Yes I could have POSSIBLY have prevented that accident if before flight if I had taken the tube out of the tyre and sent it a way to a tyre specialist laboratory and had in analysed, The clue why I didnt do that is contained in the last word of the last sentence!

Understanding that MOST but not all accidents have an error chain within them that are as a result of Human Performance & Limitation factors is going to be more useful than saying "all accidents are avoidable" in this case.

Yes I hear you say, that's just "academic" but not if your trapped in a burning aircraft knowing the fireman has gone home.


But it seems from what you are saying above is that TEM is being used after the event, is there not a framework for use in everyday situations, say during line ops.
User avatar
By aerial
#1672845
Perhaps Threat and Error Management should be renamed Threat and Error Mitigation because the aim is to reduce the risk to a tolerable level? As people have said risk will always be present.

It is said that when NASA sent people to the moon they had mitigated the risk of failure (read loss of human asset) to 20% (1 in 5) the astronauts themselves reckoned that it was 50% (1 in 2) but they accepted the risk and went - it was an acceptable risk to them when measured against its achievement. And what a ride it was!

Better to explain TEM as in terms of 'Unsafe Acts' and 'Unsafe Conditions'. Almost all 'loss causing incidents' aka accidents are a combination of Acts (Errors) and Conditions (Threats).

The task I give you is to walk down a street with an open manhole in the pavement. The open manhole is an unsafe condition. If you are not looking where you are going that is an unsafe act. When and Act and a Condition exist together there will be an extremely high likelihood of falling into the manhole. Remove either the Act (in-attention) or the Condition (stop the fall into the manhole) and there will be no accidental loss. Apply that to flying and call it TEM!.

One. You don't have to stop people walking down the street or flying.

Two. Safety should never be a reason for not doing something. Quite the reverse, as in the case of the astronauts safety is an enabler.

Understand the magnitude of risk (Likelihood x Severity) - reduce it to an acceptable level - and enjoy the ride.
User avatar
By Flintstone
#1672861
aerial wrote:Perhaps Threat and Error Management should be renamed Threat and Error Mitigation because the aim is to reduce the risk to a tolerable level?



Oh, right. It's going to be like that is it? :wink:

I see exactly where you're going with the Mitigation but I'm sticking with Management because in the finest tradition of FFP (Flyer Forum Pedantry) you can't always mitigate the threat. Sometimes there's nothing you can do about it but you can manage it by acknowledging it's existence and proceeding anyway (subject of course to a full risk assessment conducted with a clipboard, safety glasses, gloves, steelies and hi-viz).

While we're on the subject, this year's must have toy at CRM courses is 'Threat Of The Day'. Just tag (hur hur) that onto the end of your briefing and you'll be the hippest kid on the aerodrome.
AlanC liked this
By tomshep
#1672867
My instructor made me demonstrate dangerous and unusual attitudes. I thought I'd be excused that one.
By tomshep
#1672869
A third of people die in bed.
Likelihood : 1 in 3.
Severity: Highest possible.
How do you sleep at night?
User avatar
By GolfHotel
#1672874
tomshep wrote:A third of people die in bed.
Likelihood : 1 in 3.
Severity: Highest possible.
How do you sleep at night?


But have you checked when they die? They could die in bed during the day!
User avatar
By Pete L
#1672876
Flintstone wrote: and proceeding anyway (subject of course to a full risk assessment conducted with a clipboard, safety glasses, gloves, steelies and hi-viz).


How on earth do you wrestle with the controls with that lot on? Aah...I forgot...it's a bizjet with a start-to-stop autopilot. :D
gasman, Flintstone liked this
By Harry Brown
#1672879
GolfHotel wrote:
tomshep wrote:A third of people die in bed.
Likelihood : 1 in 3.
Severity: Highest possible.
How do you sleep at night?


But have you checked when they die? They could die in bed during the day!



Quite a few people die in someone elses bed too
User avatar
By Waveflyer
#1672895
tomshep wrote: ......shot by a jealous husband and aged 105.
Living dangerously has its place!


Showing your age a bit there Tom.

Years ago it was safe for everybody to presume that the husband you mention had a wife whereas in these modern and enlightend times the husbands other half could be one of several different types.

Be careful what you wish for or what you are revealing about your preferences :shock:

:D :D
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1672897
Waveflyer wrote:Be careful what you wish for or what you are revealing about your preferences :shock:

Indeed what @tomshep revealed without clarification was not pretty. I had an image of a centenarian husband hobbling in to the bedroom with a gun he can hardly hold and shooting the 105 yr old Tom who is in bed with a centenarian woman…I'll leave the rest out. :shock:
Waveflyer liked this