Timothy wrote:
You are flying VFR in Class G in the UK at 2,400’, where the highest obstacle within 5 nm of your track is 700’,
Dave_Phillips wrote:
at a level which is at least 300 m (1 000 ft) above the highest obstacle located within 8 km of the estimated position of the aircraft.
Sorry, I am still at a loss.
I think we assess risk from experience.
Most of us spend a lot of time in a car. Most of us drive. When we are being driven, we assess risk largely based on our own standards. We feel the driver is going to fast, getting too close to the car in front, relying on the brakes too much etc. Most of us joining a track day driver for the first time will feel they are at risk, because the driver uses the brakes in a different way than on the road, takes a very different line into the corner, drives much faster than we are accustom etc.
I think we modify our perception of the degree of risk. If we know the track day driver regularly takes part in events we feel he probably knows what he is doing, and if he gives us some sort of explanation before, for example that he will enter and leave a corner in a particular way because the racing line is the most efficient line to follow, then our confidence grows in his ability, even if the way in which he drives seems at first unnatural.
Flying, and some other sports are different, because most passengers have little idea what to expect or have any bench mark by which to judge the pilots competence. For many people much of the whole process of flight seems inherently unsafe.
To the extent they have some experience, it is based on their perception of commercial air transport because most people have had some exposure to this. Most people would not equate flying in cloud as any more or less risky because their experience is that when they go on holiday commercial aircraft do it all the time. I doubt most people realise additional training is involved.
Most people have no idea that aircraft are not separated by air traffic and that pilots rely on see and avoid.
In the first case who would have thought flying in cloud without additional training presented any additional risk? In the second case who would have thought aircraft not being separated by AT actually had very little impact on the risk? In other words our intuition is often not very reliable when dealing with matters outside our experience.
In almost everything we do there is risk. Don’t more people die in their home from accidents, a place where we might think we were least at risk.
We can’t manage the outcome of some risky situations in which we place ourselves. For example, flying over fog or at night, or avoiding other aircraft. When many lives are at stake we deal with these risks by eliminating them. We ban single engine public transport (in some countries at least, or insist on a turbine), and require means for separating traffic.
We can manage the outcome of other risks. For example, when the engine quits we are trained to ensure the best possible outcome and thus diminish the risk greatly.
I think distinguishing between the two is helpful. It is worth knowing what risks are very difficult or impossible to mitigate. For example, I would again cite flying over a solid fog bank.
At least when we take on those risks we are aware that because the outcome is mostly out of our control it as well to try our best to ensure we don’t suffer an engine failure in the first place. It is also as well that we understand the risk of the engine failing so we can factor in that risk and decide whether the odds are reasonable. If engines failed regularly I guess most / many of us would decide it was too risky to fly over fog. In reality we know the risk is very very small so we accept that level of risk in much the same way that we accept a risk of a tyre blowing out on the motorway at 70mph might be fatal but it hardly ever happens, and even when it does we stand a good chance of surviving the experience.
Timothy asked earlier which flight would be better to L2K, one in a clapped out old Archer in VMC or a well maintained twin in IMC. I would suggest there is very little difference. The risks in each are different, but the strategies for managing those risks are sound or the risk is so small as being reasonable to accept.
I enjoy aeros. I know my level of skill and training is inadequate to deal with low level aeros. For that reason I feel I would not be able to manage the risk, but I recognise with the correct training the risk is reasonably manageable. That is why I agree low level aerobatics should be banned with a specific dispensation based on further training. I think that is reasonable regulation.
one in a clapped out old Archer in VMC or a well maintained twin in IMC. I would suggest there is very little difference.
I am very sure that the VFR flight in the “old Archer” is much less risky. Flying a piston twin IFR and in IMC as a single pilot is the most demanding form of personal flying, IMHO.
Alexis wrote:
I am very sure that the VFR flight in the “old Archer” is much less risky. Flying a piston twin IFR and in IMC as a single pilot is the most demanding form of personal flying, IMHO.
So, you are happy to go over water in an SEP, through one of the busiest bits of Class G in the world, flying between two very busy GA airfields at the same time as tens of others on the same route on a Sunday afternoon, with no traffic system, yet you are not happy being flown in IMC by an autopilot in an aircraft with two engines, good OEI capability, traffic and weather systems?
I guess that if our own risk assessments are at such odds, there is little hope for passengers.
Dave_Phillips wrote:
Just like others have stated here, it is clear that pilots don’t understand risk.
If you “understand” risk, you have misunderstood the whole thing IMO. Risk is only relevant for statistical analysis and analytical considerations. Numbers like one in a million, or one in ten thousand, means nothing to us on a personal basis. We understand danger, like flying VFR into IMC you will likely hit the ground too hard to survive (especially in a hilly country). This is similar to driving against the lanes, you are in imminent danger of hitting someone straight on with fatal outcome.
I don’t know, maybe we only understand risk when the possibility of an accident reaches almost 100%, when it is the most likely outcome. Hence, it is more stupid than risky. When we talk about the risk of GA, we mean one out of every ten thousand flight hours have fatal outcome (or whatever the number is). Then we compare this with airlines with a number of one in a billion flight hours (or whatever). Clearly this is the risk we have to “explain” to passengers. IMO that number means nothing. Statistically that passenger stand a higher risk of falling in some stairs, dying from the injuries.
The only sensible thing when flying with passengers, is to include larger margins. Margins on weather, wind, currency and so on. Yet we have no idea whatsoever to which extent these margins actually reduces the risk, and it wouldn’t mean anything to us if we knew those numbers in any case. But, the gut feeling tells us that the farther we are from imminent danger, the less likely we are to enter that danger. It makes perfect sense without us having to lean on statistical numbers or regulations. It’s a cultural thing, plain and simple. The culture could also be to follow the regulations by the book (flying at VFR minima is always OK, or it wouldn’t be “allowed”), trusting the mechanic 100% on a certified aircraft is “OK”, stuff like that. The culture could also be very different. Flying with passengers, you would like to impress them, taking chances, because your “risk management skills” are so good you can tweak the risk to your benefit no matter what.
Either way, the passenger don’t have a clue if he/she don’t know you in person, and knows the culture you are coming from.
Of course I know that flying over open water a twin is safer. But in general, as you should know, flying a twin safely, especially in IMC, is much more demanding than flying an Archer in VMC. It does not matter if the Archer is old, they are ALL old ;-) (the twins too …)
If your definition of “safety” is “Autopilot” then we cannot agree.
I guess that if our own risk assessments are at such odds, there is little hope for passengers.
And why does your answer have to be that aggressive?
PS: My airplane has a sophisticated traffic system and EGPWS, and a two weather systems, and probably a much better autopilot than most piston twins.
All subjective.
How many clapped out singles fly that route, and how many of them come to grief? What %age of flights does that represent?
Hoe many well equipped twins fly that route in IMC, and how many of them come to grief? What %age of flights does that represent?
I only object to one thing in this debate. There is a sizable faction of pilots, and regulators, who want to restrict freedoms in a disproportionate way based on no data, or anecdotal data at best. As if the accident of the Gulfstream, clearly unfamiliar with the airport and unable to figure out that Biggin has no centre line lights, lining up with the runway edge has any bearing on Timothy’s ability to find the runway centreline in fog on an airfield he flies from at least once per week.
The burden of proof for your own risk assessment is what you want it to be. I certainly won’t fly in these weather conditions, and many here won’t. And of course anecdotal evidence like the above goes into that judgement – if that crew got it wrong, so could I.
The burden of proof to FORCE others to not take that risk should be VERY high.
My wife has been flying with me for more than 20 years, but is unusual in that she has little notion of danger or risk. I have had to teach her to never walk in front of an aircraft, whether moving or not, and to stand well clear if I am starting the engine. In the home she requires education about electrical appliances, but being a doctor is well aware of medical risks.
My risk assessment friend had a holiday home in the Pyrenees and we often used to visit them as there is an airstrip (LFCB) at the town. He seemed to have no idea of the risks we were taking to fly there. I used to phone him before departure to ask about weather conditions, but he was unable to give a cogent reply, especially with respect to winds. The airstrip is quite dangerous if windy, and clouds can form quickly blocking the valley. There is no way out to the South.
I had engineer friend who was an expert witness in court cases for industrial accidents. He told me he always packed a rope in his overnight bag in case he had to evacuate the hotel as he had seen many cases where the fire escape had been locked…
Simon
I think there is a sound point on both positions but because the assumptions are different.
Alexis is correct that if something goes wrong managing a twin in these conditions is very difficult – without currency and training.
Timothy is correct that if something goes wrong in the SEP – for example an engine out – managing the outcome is equally difficult -without currency and training.
The risk of traffic is probably about neutral because we know the chances of a collision is very very small.
That is why I think both flights are about equal given both pilots are equally well trained to do what they are doing. For me I guess the twin might just edge it, becasue it eliminates those risks that the pilots skill cant control.
If one or other pilot is more or less trained then that is the one I would want to avoid, but if they were equally poorly trained I would go in the SEP.
The risk derives from something “going wrong” that the pilot is unable to manage for one reason or another.
The burden of proof to FORCE others to not take that risk should be VERY high.
We probably all agree on that. But there are exceptions – for example when you take kids flying. I have flown many children over the years, and to my surprise many parents of my kids’s friends will not even ask about my qualification or experience as a pilot, not even if they don’t know me in person. I always had a hard time understanding that …
