Why do they die?

[wabower]

There seems to be no dispute that ~90% of accidents are pilot-induced. Neither does there seem to be much dispute regarding the various levels of competence and the impact and manifestations on human behavior.

Into which of the 4 matrix categories do most accident pilots fall? Are non-accident pilots in the same categories but just luckier, or are they typically in a different box?

http://www.businessballs.com/consciouscompetencelearningmodel.htm

 

[dmccormack]

There seems to be no dispute that ~90% of accidents are pilot-induced. Neither does there seem to be much dispute regarding the various levels of competence and the impact and manifestations on human behavior.

Into which of the 4 matrix categories do most accident pilots fall? Are non-accident pilots in the same categories but just luckier, or are they typically in a different box?

http://www.businessballs.com/consciouscompetencelearningmodel.htm

Well, there's usually a pilot flying the airplane, so it follows that most (all?) accidents are somehow pilot caused.

Don't taxi to the runway and you won't have any NTSB incidents.

 

[wabower]

Saturday's tiny-mind winner of the "Deep and Profound Grasp of the Obvious" award has now been determined. Others need not apply.

Well, there's usually a pilot flying the airplane, so it follows that most 9all?) accidents are somehow pilot caused.

Don't taxi to the runway and you won't have any NTSB incidents.

 

[SCCutler]

Saturday's tiny-mind winner of the "Deep and Profound Grasp of the Obvious" award has now been determined. Others need not apply.

(sigh)

I had such hopes.

 

[dmccormack]

"Conscious incompetence" has been recognized for a long, long time.

It's a fancy term for "You don't know what you don't know."

Except the new term kept a bevy of psych majors busy and funded for a while...

 

[ronnieh]

My guess is #1. That seems to be a fancy way of saying that "stupid kills". There is a thread in "Flight Following" where the OP asked if low visibility is the main cause of accidents. It appeared that fuel exhaustion and fuel starvation is higher on the list. I am not sure how you get through to some pilots that if you run out of fuel the engine(s) will quit. If the engine(s) do quit a landing of some kind will result soon after.
I believe when it comes to low time pilots in small airplanes we have to accept the premise that it is dangerous. I hear people all the time preaching about how we need to improve the safety record of general aviation. One way to improve the numbers, is seperate them by catagory. I do not think a G550 flown by a professional crew should be lumped in with a 200 hour PP in a 172.
As I said some activities are just more dangerous than others. My wife and I love to ride motorcycles. It worries me for her to ride and I accept that it is dangerous. She has had good training, has a well maintained bike, stays off of wet roads, wears appropiate clothing and in general takes her riding very seriously. However it is still dangerous and we have had friends hurt very badly.
As far as I know GA accidnts in accidents per hours flown, have been somwhat flat (not completely) for as long as I can remember. Yes, we all need to be careful, don't run out of fuel, VFR pilots need to stay in VFR conditions. IR pilots need to be current and proficient before flying IFR. Don't fly in conditions that exceed the capabilities of pilot or plane. And lastly understand some activities are more dangerous than others.

 

[wabower]

And capable of a resounding win on any given Saturday. :wink2:

(sigh)

I had such hopes.

 

[wabower]

Also known as "nothing is so dangerous as ignorance in action."

"Conscious incompetence" has been recognized for a long, long time.

It's a fancy term for "You don't know what you don't know."

Except the new term kept a bevy of psych majors busy and funded for a while...

 

[Steve Foley]

There seems to be no dispute that ~90% of accidents are pilot-induced. Neither does there seem to be much dispute regarding the various levels of competence and the impact and manifestations on human behavior.

Into which of the 4 matrix categories do most accident pilots fall? Are non-accident pilots in the same categories but just luckier, or are they typically in a different box?

http://www.businessballs.com/consciouscompetencelearningmodel.htm

Since all certificated pilots must demonstrate at least minimal competence, the accident pilots with certificates fall into the conscious competent box.

I suppose you've got your barefoot bandit types who don't fall into that category, yet are the cause of a crash, but that's a small number.

I'm sure there are a few who think they're competent when, in fact, they are not, like the single engine pilot who killed his daughter in a multi-engine plane crash. Again, a small minority.

The vast majority of pilots who crash are competent, but made one or more mistakes, or competent but simply unlucky.

 

[ronnieh]

Steve, the key is MININAL competence. The minimum standards to the PTS are just that. Sure you can plan a short cross country, fly a figure 8 and recover from a couple of stalls, planned stalls that you know are coming. Mostly a monkee see monkey do type thing. However, at some point you are going to face something not in the PTS. You are going to have to excercise some judgement, perhaps you will need some understanding of an aircraft system. Might be a weather situation, adverse headwinds and the list goes on. It is here that the pilot who does not know what they don't know gets into trouble. I feel if you can make it a couple thousand hours with 1500 honest cross country and in the case of the IR pilot at least 100 hours actual with a couple missed approaches due to minimums then you begin to know what you don't know and can concetrate on learning those things. I think there is an element of luck in the first few hundred hours. But, the more you learn, practice and study the luckier you get. JMHO.

 

[Jay Honeck]

http://www.businessballs.com/consciouscompetencelearningmodel.htm

Wow. Who WRITES this stuff?

 

[Graueradler]

If there is a personality type that is more likely to exercise poor judgement, that is where you will find the higher accident rates. I see pilots whose planes not infrequently take close to or more than placarded useable fuel on fill-up. These are frequently the same ones who light the fires and go with no or little pre-flight inspection. These are the ones whose invitations for a ride I decline. It would be interesting to know if they fall in a consistent quadrant of the Myers-Briggs personality profile or not.

 

[Everskyward]

Into which of the 4 matrix categories do most accident pilots fall?

I think there are accident pilots in all boxes although there are probably fewer mishandling accidents from the "unconscious competence" crowd. If you can perform a physical skill without thinking about it too much you have more brain cells available for other things. If you're busy trying to think about how to control the airplane it's easier to become a victim of tunnel vision or not seeing the forest for the trees. I'm not sure how much unconscious competence helps with judgment, however.

Are non-accident pilots in the same categories but just luckier, or are they typically in a different box?

We all know people who are accidents waiting to happen. Sometimes they do, but a fair number of these pilots die of old age or something unrelated to their flying. Everyone also has momentary lapses of judgment. Sometimes it catches people and sometime, fortunately most of the times, it doesn't. That's where luck comes in. Hopefully people learn from their mistakes, although sometimes people learn the wrong lesson. If they get away with something over and over it sometimes makes them bolder.

 

[Ted]

When you start flying, you are given two buckets. One is labeled "LUCK" and is full. The other one is labeled "EXPERIENCE" and it's empty. You hope that you fill up the "EXPERIENCE" bucket before you run out of the "LUCK" bucket. And even then, when the "LUCK" bucket runs out, sometimes you're just, well, unlucky.

I don't think this says anything groundbreaking. Everyone has a limit above which they will have problems. The reality is, each pilot's ability to handle particular tasks is going to depend on that pilot's training, practice, recency of experience, etc.

For the most part, I think what ends up happening is that someone becomes task saturated, and for the specific skills required at that moment, degrade to conscious or unconscious incompetence (depending on whether or not they realize there's a problem), and then die.

Someone might be at unconscious competence for crosswind landings, for instance, but may be halfway between conscious incompetence and competence on ability to respond to a clearance in actual IMC while hand-flying the plane (no autopilot), and then 1) flip the plane upsidedown 2) fly into a mountain 3) something similar.

What doesn't help here is that a number of people might develop certain areas (like handing flying in IFR), but don't spend the time hand flying the plane. Then, when faced with the need to hand fly the plane after the autopilot has failed, they find themselves consciously incompetent (or perhaps worse).

 

[Kelvin]

It's a fancy term for "You don't know what you don't know."

I heard it slightly different:

You don't know and you don't know you don't know.

Then;
You know you don't know

Finally;
You begin to know.

 

[Piloto]

Wow. Who WRITES this stuff?

Those with delirious unconciousnes

José

 

[Morne]

For the most part, I think what ends up happening is that someone becomes task saturated, and for the specific skills required at that moment, degrade to conscious or unconscious incompetence (depending on whether or not they realize there's a problem), and then die.

Someone might be at unconscious competence for crosswind landings, for instance, but may be halfway between conscious incompetence and competence on ability to respond to a clearance in actual IMC while hand-flying the plane (no autopilot), and then 1) flip the plane upsidedown 2) fly into a mountain 3) something similar.

I'm no expert, being a low time private pilot, but the above jives with my perspective on the matter.

You could be great at landing the plane, but toss in a couple of distractions and you start getting "behind the plane". Low ceilings, gusty winds, unfamiliar terrain, uncertain fuel remaining, poor visibility, other traffic, needing to use the restroom, dehydration, flying the radios, messing with the GPS, etc. Next thing you know you've effectively dropped back to a worse level of consciousness/competence.

Not enough of us brag about the flights we didn't take. I think I bragged once about a landing I decided to skip (circled around and flew home instead). We all need to positively reinforce avoiding those factors that contribute to degradation of skill.

 

[wabower]

Former newspaper guys. Why do you ask?

Wow. Who WRITES this stuff?