Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1783755
Gertie wrote:"I'll take you both together if that's what you want.

About 10yrs ago my twin sisters and their husbands went to NY to celebrate a birthday. We were on child watching duties, an 11yr old boy a 3 younger girls. They would probably be mid Atlantic when I considered how much our lives would change if that aeroplane was lost. :pale: Interestingly on their return one BiL remarked on the very scenario with the assumption we wold have had all 4 kids. :shock:

Gertie wrote:I have decided not to do that, I have decided that it's pointless having a rule if I don't follow it.

Very commendable. :thumright:

What I had in mind was not so much a black and white difference such as in fuel quantities.
I was referring to how easy it is for us to convince ourselves of improbable outcomes when it suits our objective. Maybe someone with a rule of not flying over water has a real desire to visit a particular location across water. They do the checks and factually determine they will always be within gliding distance. Rule satisfied. :thumright: However they conveniently don't consider what they are within gliding distance of is not landable. Another example may be someone exaggerating the probability of a favourable outcome in any number of scenarios because doing so satisfies them they are sticking to the rules. EG any off field landing whether in a remote area, or in crops, the likelihood of a lifejacket saving their life in a ditching, the probability of successfully inflating and getting in to a life raft…

My point is we cannot be certain we are always as safe as we may believe. Of course it works the other way in believing certain risks are greater than than they are.

All just human psychology, fascinating and we are all susceptible. Moreso because actual risks are impossible to quantify.:D
Rob P, JAFO, Dave W liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1783774
Miscellaneous wrote:What I had in mind was not so much a black and white difference such as in fuel quantities.
I was referring to how easy it is for us to convince ourselves of improbable outcomes when it suits our objective. Maybe someone with a rule of not flying over water has a real desire to visit a particular location across water. They do the checks and factually determine they will always be within gliding distance. Rule satisfied. :thumright: However they conveniently don't consider what they are within gliding distance of is not landable. Another example may be someone exaggerating the probability of a favourable outcome in any number of scenarios because doing so satisfies them they are sticking to the rules. EG any off field landing whether in a remote area, or in crops, the likelihood of a lifejacket saving their life in a ditching, the probability of successfully inflating and getting in to a life raft…

My point is we cannot be certain we are always as safe as we may believe. Of course it works the other way in believing certain risks are greater than than they are.

All just human psychology, fascinating and we are all susceptible. Moreso because actual risks are impossible to quantify.:D


And from that my friend is clear that you don't understand what people do to manage risk.

Our lives are full of risk all day every day.

Each and every day any of my kids can come to harm, that doesn't mean that I chain them to the house and wrap them in cotton wool and tin foil, no I try to educate and guide them so they can manage their lives by making sensible choices to try and avoid them coming to harm.

Each and every patient I deal with may end up with a diagnosis which is not quite correct or have side-effects which are unpleasant or worse; that doesn't mean I stop treating patients, no I try to mitigate against that happening by working careful and diligent, take a good history do the appropriate tests and come up with a sound management plan.

Each and every flight I make may end up in an accident or a fatality, that doesn't mean I don't go flying, no but I try to mitigate against that by being diligent, remain current, have regular checks and stack the odds in favour of a good outcome. When I have an engine failure I don't want myself or others to think, 'he could have thought about where to go before it went silent' I don't take a life jacket to assure survival, I take one to avoid thinking, bobbing in the channel - 'I wish I had taken one'

In that light I have my 'golden rules' not because I think that I therefore will always be safe, no far from it. But it stops me from a mishap which could have been avoided by not putting myself in situations which have been shown to have a poor outcome, either from own experience or preferably by learning from the experience of others.

We don't live long enough to make all mistakes ourselves.
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1783786
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:And from that my friend is clear that you don't understand what people do to manage risk.

On the contrary, Frank. Your post is so far from having any relevance to anything I posted it is clear you have no understanding of the points I was making. If you think otherwise feel free to explain what in my post is incorrect and how any point you make is relevant. Alternatively you would like clarification I'll be happy to oblige. :thumright:
User avatar
By Grelly
#1783787
Miscellaneous wrote:About 10yrs ago my twin sisters and their husbands went to NY to celebrate a birthday. We were on child watching duties, an 11yr old boy a 3 younger girls. They would probably be mid Atlantic when I considered how much our lives would change if that aeroplane was lost. :pale: Interestingly on their return one BiL remarked on the very scenario with the assumption we wold have had all 4 kids. :shock:


eBay :clown:
Miscellaneous, Sooty25 liked this
User avatar
By Dave W
#1783796
TheFarmer wrote:Oh bloody hell,

I woke up at 0255 hrs this morning and was thinking/worrying abut Dave’s master switch. :D


Oh, sorry - I'd checked it myself it at 0230.

Tell you what, I'll call you next time to save you waking up. :D
kanga, Flyin'Dutch', nallen and 3 others liked this
User avatar
By Flyin'Dutch'
#1783801
Miscellaneous wrote:
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:And from that my friend is clear that you don't understand what people do to manage risk.

On the contrary, Frank. Your post is so far from having any relevance to anything I posted it is clear you have no understanding of the points I was making. If you think otherwise feel free to explain what in my post is incorrect and how any point you make is relevant. Alternatively you would like clarification I'll be happy to oblige. :thumright:


I understood your post to mean that those who have 'Golden Rules' thought it would make them immune from failure or mishaps.

So if I misunderstood that then I am very happy for you to elaborate - every day a school day!
User avatar
By Miscellaneous
#1783810
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:I understood your post to mean that those who have 'Golden Rules' thought it would make them immune from failure or mishaps.

Then you very much did misunderstand. :D

To try and be concise, I was pointing out that we are all susceptible to a bit of self delusion, granted some more than others. That same self delusion (which is often proportional to the desire to achieve an objective) mixed with the difficulty in assessing risk has a consequence of some risks being assessed as lower than they are in reality and, equally, risks being avoided which are in reality lower than assessed (as in the OP). IMO emotion plays a huge part in this and it is a fine line between emotion and irrationality.

Take the old favourite, flying across water. Some simply won't do it since the risk is considered too high, others will providing they have a raft. Of course a raft increase the chances of surviving a mid Channel ditching and it makes perfect sense to mitigate the risk by having one. However in reality by how much does it reduce the risk? If the risk associated in flying without a raft is considered too high to fly, does the probability of a 70+ yr old plus passengers getting out a single door, inflating a raft and getting in to it really tip the balance from no go to go?

Or is the reality that the difference in risk is extremely small, and by either not assessing the actual probability, or choosing to assess it higher than it is, serve as a mental safety net rather than an actual safety net?
JAFO liked this
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9