Instrument Rating, not needed?

Don't accept risk. Don't embrace risk. It's unnecessary, and foolish.
Click to expand...

Don't fly. It's risky. Don't scuba dive. Same issue. Look at the data. I have never heard a pilot before say he can make a risk free flight until now. You must have the only plane ever made with zero risk of engine or avionics failure. You must also be the perfect pilot. Don't fly with me. I work at getting better but I am far from perfect.
 
I said nothing about a risk free flight.

Speak for yourself, not for me.

I spoke nothing of perfection. Also your words.

Acceptance of risk, particularly embracing it to the point of managing it, is idiotic, and dangerous.

Do you embrace risk?
 
DouglasBader said:
Risk management might make the assumption that it's not a very aggressive snake, so one could stick one's hand in there and it's unlikely one might be poisoned. Risk management might assume that only a small percentage of the bites actually transfer venom, and therefore there's minimal risk. Risk management might say the person reaching into the snake's container is trained, and therefore it's an "assumed risk."
Click to expand...
Seems to me you're describing nothing more than wishful thinking. For an aviation analogy your scenario sounds like the pilot who flies through an area of embedded TRW without any avoidance strategies or tools figuring that it's unlikely he'll actually blunder into a cell and that even if he does the plane will probably hold together. How about someone who has been trained how to grab a snake behind it's head? Say the person is skilled enough that the chances of getting a bite are similar to said chances of being bitten when walking through a park where snakes are occasionally seen. Then the risk hasn't been "eliminated" but it has been reduced to an acceptable level. ETOPS follows the same concept. That program is based on the notion that the statistical likelihood of the second engine failing during the time required to reach a landing site is low enough to make it relatively equal to other bad outcomes like the roof of the cabin coming off.

IMO, that's what risk management is really about, developing strategies that reduce known risks to levels that bring them to par with other commonly accepted risks.
 
DouglasBader said:
I said nothing about a risk free flight.

Speak for yourself, not for me.

I spoke nothing of perfection. Also your words.

Acceptance of risk, particularly embracing it to the point of managing it, is idiotic, and dangerous.

Do you embrace risk?
Click to expand...

These are your words:
Don't accept risk. Don't embrace risk. It's unnecessary, and foolish.
Click to expand...

Whether you like it or not you accept risk day in and out. Walking down a flight of stairs involves the risk of falling and braking your neck. If I had a severe inner ear problem I might consider the risk unacceptable and only use the elevator. Being healthy I often take the stairs. If you don't manage risk then you ignore it.

You have certainly stated that you don't accept any risk. I don't think you can fly. I know of no way to have a risk free flight. That means that flying in a plane implies either ignorance of the risk involved or implicit acceptance of that risk. Risk can be managed and I do manage risk in flying. I vary my personal minimums based on many factors including physical and emotional condition, aircraft condition, other challenging factors involved in the flight (will I be tired), my assessment of weather including an assessment of how uncertain I feel the forecast is.

I don't embrace risk but I do embrace life and I am willing to accept some risk in order to enjoy life more. I try to minimize risk but I am not naive enough to think I can eliminate it.

You say managing risk is idiotic and dangerous. I say ignoring risk and failing to manage and thereby minimize it is idiotic and dangerous.
 
Seems to me you're describing nothing more than wishful thinking.
Click to expand...

It seems to you, incorrectly.

Whether you like it or not you accept risk day in and out. Walking down a flight of stairs involves the risk of falling and braking your neck. If I had a severe inner ear problem I might consider the risk unacceptable and only use the elevator.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur. If you took the elevator, you eliminated the risk of falling on the stairs, didn't you. This is risk elimination.

By taking the elevator, you put other hazards in play, and thus create risks. You then need to look at the new risks you've created, and see what can be done about eliminating them.

Risk elimination is a complex, ongoing process, not a one-time affair. One does not begin the flight with risk elimination duties done. They never stop.

I say ignoring risk and failing to manage and thereby minimize it is idiotic and dangerous.
Click to expand...

So you say, but your saying is irrelevant. Who has said anything about ignoring risk?

Eliminate it.

You accept it. Eschew risk or embrace it, as you will. You choose to embrace it in your zest for "life." Call it "management" if you will, or call it a "calculated risk" as many do. Justification.

It's said that justification is the narcotic of the soul. Far too many are addicts, and in a business in which we do well to identify and eliminate risks, those who continue to accept, embrace, choose, and manage risk are addicts.

The first step is admitting it.
 
EppyGA said:
Wow....is this thread still going? :rofl:
Click to expand...

That is a hazard inherent in POA threads, particularly the kind where two people who are allways right get into it. The resdidual risk of that happening is 1 I am afraid.
 
Who has said anything about ignoring risk?

Eliminate it.
Click to expand...

Are you implying you eliminate all risk? How? I eliminate some risk and minimize others. OK, ceilings where you are headed will be 500'. You are reasonably current so risk is low but non-zero. The only way to eliminate that risk is to not fly. By being very proficient and flying a capable and well maintained plane you can reduce the risk but you cannot eliminate it.

If a commercial flight has less risk in getting from point A to B will you take the commercial flight? I love flying so I sometimes accept more risk than necessary since I would lose the joy of flying in order to reduce the risk.

Last weekend I had a great time in Greenville having lunch with other POA board members. I had no reason to take the flight other than to enjoy flying my plane and to enjoy the company of other pilots. In doing so I took on more risk than I would have if I had stayed at home in my house. Since you eliminate rather than manage risk I take it you would stay home and completely eliminate any risk associated with the flight. The alternative for you, based on your comments, would be to find a way to have a flight completely free of any risk.
 
Doug, every time you take off, there is a risk the wings will fall off. What do you do about that risk?
 
Are you implying you eliminate all risk? How? I eliminate some risk and minimize others.
Click to expand...

Risk elimination involves identifying each hazard and preventing it from becoming a risk by not putting it in play, finding an alternate course of action, or creating enough alternate options that the hazard presents no risk.

Overflying the ocean in a single engine airplane presents risk. One might eliminate that risk when departing a coastal location by flying the opposite direction, inland.

The hazard and the risk must be identified. Is the water the hazard? Is the increased humidity and potential carburetor ice the hazard? Is drowning the hazard? Each must be addressed in turn.

OK, ceilings where you are headed will be 500'. You are reasonably current so risk is low but non-zero. The only way to eliminate that risk is to not fly.
Click to expand...

You haven't identified a risk. You've stated that ceilings will be 500'. What is the risk?

Not flying is one way to eliminate a risk. It is not the only way.

Doug, every time you take off, there is a risk the wings will fall off. What do you do about that risk?
Click to expand...

Every time I take off there is not a risk that the wing(s) will fall off. First there must be a hazard. Have the wing attach bolts been overtorqued, causing a failure in the fittings? These can be inspected, and are. Do cracks exist in the spar? This is an inspection item. Eliminate the hazards, eliminate the risks. Don't put a hazard in play, it doesn't become a risk. Wings don't simply fall off. Something causes them to fall off.

Last year I was hired by an operation that uses large four engine aircraft for special operations. My position was as pilot and mechanic. I spent several months looking the aircraft over very closely, performing maintenance and inspections. I determined after spending considerable time inspecting the aircraft (which are older) that I did not wish to fly them, and discontinued my services. I already had a job, and had no need to take this additional work. In my estimation, I determined that a hazard existed for which I could provide (in that case) only one form of preventing the very real risk of wing separation. I refused to fly the aircraft.

One may ensure that an aircraft is operated within prescribed limitations and parameters to avoid pulling the wings off; one can prevent flutter through careful maintenance and inspections, and remaining within limits. Risks don't exist until a hazard exists; the risk becomes when the hazard is put in play.

Eliminate the hazard, eliminate the risk. By changing the status quo, one may be creating new hazards, and thus, new risks. If that's the case, then those new hazards/risks must be addressed in turn.

Risk elimination is not a one-time affair. It is continual and complex in nature.
 
Last edited:
DouglasBader said:
Risk elimination involves identifying each hazard and preventing it from becoming a risk by not putting it in play, finding an alternate course of action, or creating enough alternate options that the hazard presents no risk.

Overflying the ocean in a single engine airplane presents risk. One might eliminate that risk when departing a coastal location by flying the opposite direction, inland.

The hazard and the risk must be identified. Is the water the hazard? Is the increased humidity and potential carburetor ice the hazard? Is drowning the hazard? Each must be addressed in turn.



You haven't identified a risk. You've stated that ceilings will be 500'. What is the risk?

Not flying is one way to eliminate a risk. It is not the only way.
Click to expand...

Doug, please grab a dictionary or thesaurus, risk and hazard are synonyms, they mean the same thing. You are confusing hazard with danger.
 
I'm not confused at all.

Hazard is not the same as danger. A hazard may present no danger. A hazard may present no risk.

A risk may or may not be dangerous.
 
DouglasBader said:
Risk elimination involves identifying each hazard and preventing it from becoming a risk by not putting it in play, finding an alternate course of action, or creating enough alternate options that the hazard presents no risk.

Overflying the ocean in a single engine airplane presents risk. One might eliminate that risk when departing a coastal location by flying the opposite direction, inland.

The hazard and the risk must be identified. Is the water the hazard? Is the increased humidity and potential carburetor ice the hazard? Is drowning the hazard? Each must be addressed in turn.



You haven't identified a risk. You've stated that ceilings will be 500'. What is the risk?

Not flying is one way to eliminate a risk. It is not the only way.



Every time I take off there is not a risk that the wing(s) will fall off. First there must be a hazard. Have the wing attach bolts been overtorqued, causing a failure in the fittings? These can be inspected, and are. Do cracks exist in the spar? This is an inspection item. Eliminate the hazards, eliminate the risks. Don't put a hazard in play, it doesn't become a risk. Wings don't simply fall off. Something causes them to fall off.

Last year I was hired by an operation that uses large four engine aircraft for special operations. My position was as pilot and mechanic. I spent several months looking the aircraft over very closely, performing maintenance and inspections. I determined after spending considerable time inspecting the aircraft (which are older) that I did not wish to fly them, and discontinued my services. I already had a job, and had no need to take this additional work. In my estimation, I determined that a hazard existed for which I could provide (in that case) only one form of preventing the very real risk of wing separation. I refused to fly the aircraft.

One may ensure that an aircraft is operated within prescribed limitations and parameters to avoid pulling the wings off; one can prevent flutter through careful maintenance and inspections, and remaining within limits. Risks don't exist until a hazard exists; the risk becomes when the hazard is put in play.

Eliminate the hazard, eliminate the risk. By changing the status quo, one may be creating new hazards, and thus, new risks. If that's the case, then those new hazards/risks must be addressed in turn.

Risk elimination is not a one-time affair. It is continual and complex in nature.
Click to expand...
Since you chose not to fly and some other guy continued to fly, I suppose you can show us the NTSB report of the in-flight Wong separation that you avoided, by eliminating your personal risk.
 
Doug you're a professional pilot, you've filled out a risk assessment yes? With that assessment there are different modes of flight, wx, crew rest, crew hours etc. Any one of those factors can raise or lower risk. In the end the company and the pilot accept the final risk value because the benefits outweigh the costs. We accept no unnecessary risk, but even with risk mitgation steps there is always some risk in flight. My job (HEMS), has some of the riskiest flying you can do, but I accept it and embrace it.
 
Since you chose not to fly and some other guy continued to fly, I suppose you can show us the NTSB report of the in-flight Wong separation that you avoided, by eliminating your personal risk.
Click to expand...

Yes, I can, with five different aircraft. Two of them resulted in actual separations, killing everyone. The other three did not, but developed cracks that grounded the aircraft. Four different operators, entirely unrelated. In the case of a fifth operator that developed such cracks making the sixth and seventh aircraft, I refused to fly at all for the operator. NTSB reports, therefore, exist for two mishaps of that group, and both are well documented, albeit with very incorrect public perceptions Not my first rodeo.

Doug you're a professional pilot, you've filled out a risk assessment yes?
Click to expand...

No. We don't do that.

I have several examples in files at home. I don't use them, and no operator for whom I've flown does. The closest was one operation in Iraq to whom I was attached, that used a computer-based fatigue-management system. Their program didn't accept fatigue, but did set flight and duty limits based on certain factors. If they found we were flying too much, according to the program, we'd get flagged with a notice to take time off. You could say it was a risk assessment, but it wasn't. It was a simple algorithm that spelled out a pre-determined amount of flight and duty. Because of the nature of our operation, I regularly timed out and ended up being stood down for a day until the program dictated that I could fly again.

The program for which I'm operating presently has no duty or time limits, and prescribes no days off. Each operation, each company, each organization, each agency, etc, is a little different. Different policies, different regulations, different contracts. I work for several different employers, and wear several different hats; some simultaneously (double dipping, if you will), sometimes. Others are seasonal, and sometimes it's just one employer. Some assignments come and go. Sometimes I need to balance one against the other. For certain kinds of flying, for example, the FAA dictates that any and all commercial flying is cumulative to flight time limits. If I fly 121, for example, I must also count other commercial flying such as ag or firefighting, toward my cumulative limits, but only when considering my limits for 121. Firefighting doesn't care, but contractually has it's own limits applicable to the fire operations. No risk assessment is filled out in either case.

My job (HEMS), has some of the riskiest flying you can do, but I accept it and embrace it.
Click to expand...

I flew medevac, air ambulance, organ transport, and other duties for a number of years, for several different operations. I never considered it risky (any more than the firefighting I'm doing right now), and never had a problem refusing a flight, dictating we use a different time, location, routing, or take a delay) in the interest of safety. I still don't. In the last two days I've stated we won't use a particular airport, for example, do to crosswinds, in the interest of safety. Two days ago I refused a drop requested by an air attack, to support a dozer near the head of an active fire. I counter-offered another drop that I could do safely, and we did that. Nobody wants to see us put an aircraft in the ground; not me, not the air tactical group supervisor, not the incident commander, not the dozer operator, and not the reporters following the event on the ground or in the air. We're there to do a job and do it safely, and we don't help anyone if we can't do that.

I've flown firefighting operations for many years. I don't embrace risk as part of that operation, but I do engage in a steady, unrelenting systematic process of risk elimination. There will never be a time when this process is done, before, during, or after a flight. We don't use a matrix or risk assessment, but we do consider the operation on a segmented and holistic basis as needed.
 
You haven't identified a risk. You've stated that ceilings will be 500'. What is the risk?
Click to expand...

There is the risk of disorientation. It may be minimal for a god like pilot like you but it is still there. For more normal pilots it is definitely there. Training and flying a great aircraft can greatly diminish the risk but I don't think it is ever zero.

A pilot was on a cross country flight with an instructor working on instrument skills. They stopped for the instructor to take break. The pilot decided to do some touch and go's. After several successful ones he lost it on takeoff and crashed. I suspect p-factor with inadequate rudder control. From everything I know this was a contentious pilot although not a professional. He trained regularly. He just slipped up once. I am all too well aware that I am imperfect. Ceiling matters because a momentary lapse at 500' is much worse than one at 5000'. IMC makes it worse. Perhaps you have never made a mistake. I suggest you watch the AOPA video "No Greater Burden." There is the tragic result of a one time mistake. I am all too well aware of my potential to screw up. People like you who claim they recognize and eliminate all risk when flying scare me. You may deny you have said this but read your posts. You claim you accept no risk nor do you stop at mitigating it. You claim you eliminate it.
 
Been thinking quietly about this string for a while.
Ratings are not necessary, training and a pilot certificate are not necessary. But they are like education.

Education (B.A.) is not strictly necessary for sevaral jobs that pay well- automobile sales, real estate, etc....there are some certifications, but the education per se is not required. Education does, however, help in numerous somretimes-difficult-to-measure ways, but when they do come up, it is VERY helpful.

You don't need any ratings or even a medical to fly. You just need to know how.
 
In 2009 Wall Street Journal listed HEMS as the most dangerous job in America. Our accident rate has been pathetic in the past and only recently improved. While my risk assessment value today is a low, the level of risk involved due to the nature of the operation is far greater than someone who flys from airport A to B. I'm curious, what HEMS company did you work for that didn't require filling out a risk assessment? What this sometime ago?
 
LandSickness said:
What would prevent a student at any acceptable level training under the hood? If there is an IFR requirement for becoming a Private Pilot, what would prevent a Private Pilot(or for that matter, a Sport Pilot) taking more than required training until he or she felt at the very least VFR into IMC proficient without necessarily pursuing the rating? The rating seems less important than the level of preparation achieved. I'm sure there are Sport Pilots with more hours in the same type plane than a Private Pilot that could, under the same conditions, be considered more proficient, independent of the ratings.

I'm a private pilot student simply because it would enable me to fly many more aircraft than a Sport Pilot can. The Sport Pilot cert, even with restrictions, fits 99% of my mission. No desire to fly at night, or in marginal weather though I see the value in being proficient at it. That wouldn't prevent me from training without pursuing a rating until I was confident in my ability to handle a particular circumstance.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if I'm taking your post the wrong way or not. That said, I think that a new private or sport pilot with only 6 or 8 hours under the hood, or maybe even 20 hours under the hood, who thinks that he is safe to fly into the clouds is REALLY fooling him/herself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXzYZjpoz_E
 
Velocity173 said:
In 2009 Wall Street Journal listed HEMS as the most dangerous job in America. Our accident rate has been pathetic in the past and only recently improved. While my risk assessment value today is a low, the level of risk involved due to the nature of the operation is far greater than someone who flys from airport A to B. I'm curious, what HEMS company did you work for that didn't require filling out a risk assessment? What this sometime ago?
Click to expand...

I'm wondering what company isn't teaching risk management in the modern form in CRM, I thought it was a requirement, it certainly is in BRM, Bridge Resource Management, the maritime equivalent.
 
Again, my comments were not in reference to gaining confidence to make a bad decision.

I'm talking about increasing one's chances to RECOVER from VFR into IMC. Frankly, inadvertent IMC recovery should be a part of ALL flight training. There are countless NTSB reports that reference what I consider an avoidable tragedy. I don't think even Instrument Pilots should choose to fly in weather that significantly decreases the odds of a safe flight.

MBDiagMan said:
I'm not sure if I'm taking your post the wrong way or not. That said, I think that a new private or sport pilot with only 6 or 8 hours under the hood, or maybe even 20 hours under the hood, who thinks that he is safe to fly into the clouds is REALLY fooling him/herself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXzYZjpoz_E
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
I'm wondering what company isn't teaching risk management in the modern form in CRM, I thought it was a requirement, it certainly is in BRM, Bridge Resource Management, the maritime equivalent.
Click to expand...

It's a Op Spec requirement for my company but not implemented in all HEMS providers. One of the reasons NTSB sited for some HEMS accidents was the failure to do any ORM. With Doug's situation I don't know. It seems like he's flown every aircraft in every part of the world. How all these companies don't do any risk assessment is beyond me. :dunno:
 
Last edited:
jmp470 said:
IFR pilots manage systems. Boring and might as well be a taxi driver!
Click to expand...

Unless you enjoy the challenge, as I do. I don't find IFR flying the least bit boring.
 
DouglasBader said:
Yes, I can, with five different aircraft. Two of them resulted in actual separations, killing everyone. The other three did not, but developed cracks that grounded the aircraft. Four different operators, entirely unrelated. In the case of a fifth operator that developed such cracks making the sixth and seventh aircraft, I refused to fly at all for the operator. NTSB reports, therefore, exist for two mishaps of that group, and both are well documented, albeit with very incorrect public perceptions Not my first rodeo.
Click to expand...
Can you post the links please?
 
I cancelled my flight Nemacolin tomorrow for fear of not being able to make it back to DC at any point on Monday or even Tuesday admist the remnants of Issac projected to slowly make its way through PA and heading east. I debated back and forth on fly (1hr) vs drive (4hrs). Ultimately, if I had an instrument rating, I would have definately flown. Time to get cracking on the rating I guess.

On the other hand, an instructor suggested (on the fly vs drive decision) "whatever decision you make will be the wrong one". So, I'm pretty much guaranteed sunny perfect weather for four straight days...which isn't so bad on vacation.
 
Can you post the links please?
Click to expand...

I can, but will not, and will not discuss the specific employers involved in any of the cases. I'll discuss certain details, but will not name names.
 
bbchien said:
Been thinking quietly about this string for a while.
Ratings are not necessary, training and a pilot certificate are not necessary. But they are like education.

Education (B.A.) is not strictly necessary for sevaral jobs that pay well- automobile sales, real estate, etc....there are some certifications, but the education per se is not required. Education does, however, help in numerous somretimes-difficult-to-measure ways, but when they do come up, it is VERY helpful.

You don't need any ratings or even a medical to fly. You just need to know how.
Click to expand...

Except selling cars or homes without a degree is not illegal.

I have not been following too closely but there have been a disproportionate number of crashes involving firefighting aircraft and airframe failure
 
DouglasBader said:
Who has said anything about ignoring risk?

Eliminate it.
Click to expand...

As an engineer, I'm dumbfounded to learn that there is a highly experienced pilot in the world who thinks it's possible to eliminate risk.

It's not. The best we can ever hope for, in ANY activity, is to reduce it. If you think you can eliminate it, you're fooling yourself.
 
I have not been following too closely but there have been a disproportionate number of crashes involving firefighting aircraft and airframe failure
Click to expand...

Disproportionate to what?

As an engineer, I'm dumbfounded to learn that there is a highly experienced pilot in the world who thinks it's possible to eliminate risk.
Click to expand...

Is this the first time you've been dumbfounded, or is this a familiar experience for you?

Welcome to reality.

It's not a matter of possibility. It's a matter of necessity.

What is truly astounding is the aggregate number of individuals who clutch their chests and cry out in unison, as if barking at the moon, "Must accept risk! Must accept risk!!"

Must not. Don't have to. There's a better way.

It's not. The best we can ever hope for, in ANY activity, is to reduce it. If you think you can eliminate it, you're fooling yourself.
Click to expand...

Risk elimination is not a magic panacea, a wand to be waived over a product, followed by the grand announcement "I therefore pronounce thee risk free."

It doesn't work that way.

We find a hazard, and we eliminate the risk aspect of that hazard, one at a time. It may be that there is a handgun sitting on the table. The handgun represents a hazard. There is no risk of being shot with the handgun if we let it sit on the table and it doesn't move. We can proactively unload the weapon, holster it, lock it up, carry it, or secure it. We can train those around it. We can remove the striker or firing pin. We can take away the ammunition. There are many ways we can eliminate risks associated with that firearm. We must identify the risks in order to eliminate them.

We may determine that the risk is a child obtaining the firearm; a child without the understanding or the sense to use or possess that firearm. We exclude children from the room. We lock up the weapon. We remove the weapon from the table. We encase the weapon and the table in resin. We can do any number of things, some more creative than others, to eliminate that risk.

Perhaps the issue isn't the firearm discharging, but rusting. We clean the weapon. We apply preservative. We place it in a safe with a desiccant.

Perhaps the risk was that of an accidental discharge. We eliminated the risk by removing the ammunition. That took care of a danger of discharge, but we destroyed the defensive utility of the weapon but making ourselves unable to use it for defense. We put the ammunition back in, but carry it discretely, controlling it. We've eliminated that risk. Perhaps we're concerned then about a negligent discharge; we train, we use a manual safety. We keep our fingers off the trigger. We may carry it in a different condition, such as no round in the chamber (a common method employed by the military, even in active combat zones): we do this to eliminate the risk. We address each risk in turn. One risk may be eliminated, but may lead to another. We consider the risks we may be creating by putting a hazard in play, we consider all the options, and then we choose among them.

Where new risks arise, we address those, too. We don't simply state that these risks will exist and we'll live with them. We address them, one at a time, but we address them all.

Failure to practice risk elimination is the root cause of mishaps.
 
AirDC said:
On the other hand, an instructor suggested (on the fly vs drive decision) "whatever decision you make will be the wrong one". So, I'm pretty much guaranteed sunny perfect weather for four straight days...which isn't so bad on vacation.
Click to expand...

I've had that happen many times. Fortunately, the "wrong" decision has always been to drive instead of fly. I can live with those wrong decisions.
 
DouglasBader said:
Welcome to reality.
Click to expand...

The reality is that risk can only be reduced, never eliminated.

It's not a matter of possibility. It's a matter of necessity.
Click to expand...

Saying that it's necessary to do something doesn't help if it's impossible.

What is truly astounding is the aggregate number of individuals who clutch their chests and cry out in unison, as if barking at the moon, "Must accept risk! Must accept risk!!"

Must not. Don't have to. There's a better way.
Click to expand...

You've been doing a fair amount of chest-clutching and barking yourself.

Believing that it's possible to fly without accepting some risk is a dangerous illusion, IMO. It borders on the FAA-identified hazardous attitude of invulnerability.
 
What is truly astounding is the aggregate number of individuals who clutch their chests and cry out in unison, as if barking at the moon, "Must accept risk! Must accept risk!!"

Must not. Don't have to. There's a better way.
Click to expand...

Actually most people are shouting in unison that you use the correct industry standard vocabulary when talking about risk. You are using the word incorrectly in an aviation (or any other industrial) context where standardized usage of words is not only expected, it is paramount to safety. The concept you are trying to relate is correct, you are just using the incorrect vocabulary to relate it. The FAA standard technique and terminology is available in a link given in a previous post. The concept there is not different from your own, however the vocabulary differs substantially with regards to the use of the word 'risk' and what it is. It is 'danger' and 'loss' you are trying to eliminate, not risk. Risk is omnipresent.

Please try to catch up to the language as everyone else in the world is being taught.
 
Last edited:
DouglasBader said:
Failure to practice risk elimination is the root cause of mishaps.
Click to expand...

It is not possible to eliminate risks.

Do you really mean to mitigate risks to an acceptable level?
 
This argument over definitions started a couple hundred posts ago in this thread. Let's just say that we have a disconnect between the concept (which he clearly understands) and the symbols he is using to convey that concept (which are "wrong" to many of us).

Let's also accept that we won't get anywhere trying to correct him. He won't get anywhere trying to convince me his symbols are correct either. Is there anything left to say on the subject?

Sent from my ADR6300 using Tapatalk 2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top