Alexis wrote:
am not sure that you educate people with that mindset … I mean that’s so far away from intelligent decision making.
And yet it keeps on happening. Time after time. These are not all stupid people. In fact, a number of them as the surveys help point out, are experienced, high time pilots. So it can be across the board in terms of pilot ability. This https://www.avweb.com/news/features/Why-Smart-Pilots-Crash-229682-1.html, was an interesting read…
I would never call a pilot who has killed his family and himself “stupid”, … he has paid the ultimate price.
I do not even think that pilots who act this way cannot be “intelligent people”. But i am sure that there’s pilots out there whose characters prevent sensible decision making. And then there’s very intelligent people/pilots who simply have no “antennas” for danger.
Previous thread on “meaningless accidents”.
I reckon there is a story behind each of these, but it doesn’t come out. Friends of the pilot may know it but they won’t post it out of respect.
However I am not sure that is the main drift in this study.
Peter wrote:
Agreed, but one needs to attack the biggest stuff first. I don’t think it is being even touched, whereas forced landings etc have an established coverage in the syllabus.
What would you class as the “biggest stuff” then? Unusual attitude recovery etc.?
As you say, the PPL syllabus is full of forced landing emergencies in various stages of flight but not so much else (perhaps apart from lost procedures). Spent most of last week doing it!
denopa wrote:
in my mind, reading Euroga is part of what keeps me current
I think there is a lot of truth in this. I was going to put some thoughts together on that and related matters with respect to learning after they finally give me my licence.
What would you class as the “biggest stuff” then?
Establishing the likely wx conditions along the route and at the ends, planning alternates, getting notams, and aircraft performance (fuel requirements, runway long enough etc?).
Assuming the aircraft will break is a good one to cover but is way down the list of what bites people in the real world. Running out of juice must be 10x to 100x more likely than the engine having a catastrophic mechanical issue.
But the argument gets a bit circular because even if a pilot merely gets close to screwing up badly, he may get put off from flying, so currency goes down, so the risk goes up.
Back in the early 90s the CAA produced a CAP on GA accidents. When asked the proportion of owner operators versus club pilots involved, they had no idea. Again this factor has been missed. In my own experience, I have seen a very high percentage of accidents involving a group of pilots who may have more money than ability and no supervision.
Many of the conclusions justify the difference between a PPL and a CPL and the rules regarding public transport which have been eroded by recent EU regulations regarding cost sharing. The CAA has recently added this to its website:
It is recommended that any advertising or promotion of cost-sharing flights makes it clear that they are private arrangements and not conducted in accordance with commercial air transport or, where appropriate, public transport rules.
or put simply, carries a greater risk. I am aware of at least two accidents involving such flights this year!
I am also intrigued to the reference to NPPL holders
(particularly those at (N)PPL level)
Most NPPL holders were once PPL holders; when testing a candidate for the issue of a licence, the standard is the same regardless of which private licence it is for. The question is: are they safe to fly an aeroplane carrying passengers? Some may be more capable than others, but if someone fails a PPL test they would also fail an NPPL test.
You cannot train a PPL holder for every eventuality, they are equipped with a few basic skills from which they can learn and develop further. Those who fly in a club environment are usually supervised to protect the clubs assets if nothing else. Try looking at a few accidents and see which environment the pilot has operated in, the results might be interesting.
However, I would bet that there is also a big difference in the mission profile between school/club renters, and owners. I bet the owners fly a lot more, but they also fly more complex and thus riskier profiles. It would be an interesting and non-obvious analysis.
But a vastly smaller proportion of owners will be hanging out on the UK site from which the researcher got his biggest sample 
I did also wonder about the NPPL reference, but thought that just means he just got data from both the CAA and the LAA. Today, most NPPL holders are former PPL holders who can’t or don’t want to get the Class 2 medical. No other European country has a similar route – apart from some obscure ultralight ones.
Alexis wrote:
Although 100 hours would be a good number to really stay proficient – it is completely unrealistic
I know. And heaven behold that any regulator gets ideas, but the point is, 12 hours in 2 years to keep a SEP rating is not anywhere close enough.
Alexis wrote:
If PPL pilots flew 50 hours per year the safety level would be raised significantly.
I wonder if the hours thing for revalidation makes sense at all. It might be better to introduce regular prof checks like for IR and in professional aviation. The “EASA Training Flight” already moves in that direction and lots of flight schools have this requirement as well. I would now have to do one of those to get my SEP back and maybe that is not a bad idea at all.
Alexis wrote:
By the way: This is not only a topic in flying. How many people do I know who have a driver’s licence, and how many of those have ever practiced doing an emergency braking maneuver?
Most people drive almost every day, so they have a huge amount of routine in comparison to flying. People who have a drivers licence made at 18 and then buy a car at 33 (or along those lines) and have never driven in between are another matter altogether.
In the end, it has to be the responsibility of the individual pilot or driver or whatever to judge whether he/she is proficient enough or not. Unfortunately, humans are very bad judges when it comes to one self.
I don’t think straight currency is the most direct way to improve the situation. Of course it helps but it is a blunt and expensive method, and most pilots are simply not going to fly more – because the reason they fly the number of hours is because of various factors they can’t control e.g. money or family restrictions. I am sure EuroGA has helped many pilots to fly in a different and more interesting way but they are still limited by various things.
So, changing the requirements of the revalidation flight would be far more effective. It would also get the PPL training establishment off the hook because nobody would be criticising the often poor standard of training
Driving a car is much easier because the range of tasks is limited, compared with flying. And if not sure you can just slow right down and p1ss off all those behind you 
Most people drive almost every day, so they have a huge amount of routine in comparison to flying. People who have a drivers licence made at 18 and then buy a car at 33 (or along those lines) and have never driven in between are another matter altogether.
It IS a valid example though because if you ask yourself if you have ever practiced an emergency braking maneuver (with and without ABS) and avoiding an obstacle (person) on the street, most of you will find out that you have never practiced it, although it can save a life. And that’s ALTHOUGH you drive every day.
