Safety: Decreasing your exposure to risk

Decreasing your exposure to risk

Rev. 14 — page content was last changed 26 January 2012
The page was edited by RA-Aus member Dave Gardiner www.redlettuce.com.au

There is every indication that the same familiar cluster of severe accident causes remains predominant with sport and recreational aviation and general aviation VFR pilots. This document is an introduction to a series of safety briefings that aim to encompass the flight dynamics associated with some common events that sometimes lead to destruction, thus extending your underpinning knowledge so that such disastrous outcomes are readily avoided, even if readily encountered.

The series generally explores the flight envelope (flight loading limits and gust loading limits), plus angle of attack management and energy management. It does not cover other accident causal factors such as fuel system management, flight planning management, wire strikes or flight into IMC. For information on those factors see our categorised index (covering the period from 1998 to date) of selected articles available in the online version of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's bi-monthly magazine Flight Safety Australia. Some Australian Transport Safety Bureau publications are also included.

The modules in the series are:

The articles are not intended to present the information in a simple or summary format; rather each is carefully written to convey, in a logical sequence, as much detail as considered reasonable for the average sport and recreational pilot to absorb over several readings. The articles are directed at experienced pilots, presumably familiar with the aviation environment so, novice pilots may have some initial difficulty.

It is intended that all readers will find these articles informative and useful; but bear in mind that just acquiring knowledge may not — most likely will not — strengthen your security mantle without corresponding improvements in judgement and decision-making; backed up by ample in-flight exploration and skill development.

We seem to have heard of more fatal accidents in recent years. Why are these accidents occurring? Are sport and recreational pilots and/or aircraft less safe than they were in the 1990s?

When regarded in the cold light of statistics the Recreational Aviation Australia Inc [RA-Aus] membership (being representative of powered, fixed-wing, recreational aviation) has, perhaps, been achieving near-reasonable safety results — taking into account the continuing introduction of faster, heavier, more complex and less docile aircraft; together with a marked reduction in the average years of experience of the RA-Aus pilot base. The latter is because of the accelerating intake, and training, of new pilot members in recent years.

Such statistics may be of value to some but they fail to reflect the heartache, within the membership and the families of the association, caused by serious and fatal accidents. What is perhaps even more distressing is that so many future accidents will still be classified as so-called 'pilot error' or 'human error'. Generally a shortcoming in knowledge, awareness and task management — plus misjudgement and/or unwise decision-making or planning (and perhaps complacency) — figure prominently as causal factors in those accidents. Accidents also happen when we attempt to operate in circumstances beyond our experience or ability. We — the recreational pilot community — must do all we can to limit the number of all such accidents.

Note: the term 'pilot error' appears extensively in safety investigation reports but is generally a most unsatisfactory summation of an event and its causal factors. In the 1980s the International Civil Aviation Organization [ICAO] — the administrative authority for the world's international air transport system — finally accepted the inevitability of human error in flight, maintenance and other aviation operations. Consequently, in 1989 ICAO introduced a 'human factors' training and assessment requirement for pilots (and others) and circular 227-AN/136 'Training of operational personnel in human factors' was issued. In 2008, RA-Aus at last introduced human factors to the flight training syllabus.

The Australian Civil Aviation Safety Authority also decided that, from 1 July 2009, 'threat and error management' will be added to the human factor aeronautical knowledge examinations, within the day VFR syllabus. A Civil Aviation Advisory Publication CAAP 5.59-1(0) 'Teaching and Assessing Single-Pilot Human Factors and Threat and Error Management' was published in October 2008 and is recommended reading.

The only statistic that sport and recreational aviation must be striving for is 'zero'; no fatal accidents and no crippling injuries.

Paragraph B.7 in the statement of purpose section of the RA-Aus constitution is a reminder to all. It states: "To set promote and maintain standards of safety for recreational aircraft by the specification and dissemination of information concerning standards of airworthiness for aircraft, standards of workshops and standards of knowledge for pilots and in particular, to specify, impose and enforce standards of skill and competence reactive to all stages of flying operations and to require any Member to meet such standards to the satisfaction of the Association before authorising such Member to engage in flight operations or any stage or aspect thereof and to grant, issue authorise, modify, cancel, suspend or revoke under the rules of the Association for the time being in force certificates and authorisations relating to aircraft, aerodromes, flying instructing and flying schools and to the skill and qualifications of pilots, instructors, navigators, drivers, mechanics and all persons managing, flying, driving, constructing, repairing or otherwise engaged in connection with recreational aircraft or recreational activities and to do all things relating thereto as may be deemed expedient and to make reports and recommendations to any clubs, authorities or persons concerning the same."

The following bar chart shows the number of RA-Aus fatal accidents for each year during the period 1985 to 2011 with the membership level at each of those years also shown. Multiply the left-hand scale by 100 when reading off the membership numbers.

Accident statistics

We were having terrible problems in the formative years of the 1980s (roughly one fatality per annum per 250 members): 90% of the fatal accidents then occurred in CAO 95.10 aircraft; the remainder in CAO 95.25 aircraft. There were 30 fatal accidents in the period 1985 to 1989 (six per year) while membership grew from 800 to 2200. During the period 1992 to 1999 RA-Aus ordinary (i.e. voting) membership plateaued at around 3500; pilot training, and the improved availability of choice in aircraft, started to take effect and the fatal accident numbers decreased steadily each year. CAO 95.10, CAO 95.25 and CAO 101.55 types each contributed about 25% of the accidents, with the remaining 25% split evenly between CAO 95.32 and CAO 101.28 aircraft. The factory-built types (95.25, 95.32 and 101.55) were involved in 62% of fatal accidents, and the home-builts in 38%.

However, in 1998 the advanced 544 kg 'AUF amateur-built (experimental) ultralight' (the 19-xxxx registrations) was introduced, which did much to provide the platform on which the rather astounding RA-Aus expansion was based. But this expansion also led to an alarming increase in the number of fatal accidents during the period 2001 through 2006. Amateur built aircraft figured in 47% of fatal accidents, other home-builts in 10% and factory-builts in 43%.

Recent history: does it look like recreational aviators are now getting safer and that there is less chance of having an accident?

The graph below shows the 5-year running average of fatal accidents from 1989 to 2011. The first 5-year period commences in 1985. HGFA and ASRA accidents are not included in any of the statistics.

Accident statistics

In 2007 RA-Aus membership was still increasing at an annual rate around 13%, which resulted in almost 7800 members at the end of 2007. Sadly, 2007 ended as our worst year ever, recording 8 fatal accidents in which 13 people died — 8 pilots and 5 passengers. In addition there were two other accidents where occupants were severely injured. A passenger died in nearly two-thirds of the fatal accidents, recording a disastrous increase in such casualties.

However, 2008 recorded a great improvement. There was only one fatal accident in an RA-Aus registered aircraft during the year, but sadly both occupants died. There were no accidents where long-term injuries were sustained. Since the AUF/RA-Aus was established in 1983 there has been one other year (1996) where only one fatal accident occurred. Ordinary membership at 31 December 2008 was 8440. So, considering the 145% increase in membership since 1996, 2008 was our safest flying year ever. But the combined 2007 and 2008 total was still 9 fatal accidents in which 15 people died. The average annual number of fatal accidents for the five-year period 2004 to 2008 is 4.6 — slightly less than the 1999 to 2003 period.

The 2009 year started very well; there were no fatal accidents in the first seven months and it looked like the human factors training programs introduced in 2008 were starting to produce the required results. Then there were five fatal accidents between August and December. Three of the accidents involved trikes, one of which was an unregistered aircraft, and a passenger also died in one of the trike accidents. In addition, there was a sixth accident where an RA-Aus three-axis pilot died in a trike registered with HGFA. So, a year that started with a lot of promise ended very badly; in effect maintaining the historical average annual number of fatal accidents. The number of aircraft on the RA-Aus register at the end of 2009 was 2955 and there were 9186 ordinary members.

There were two RA-Aus fatal accidents in 2010, the passenger died in the first and the pilot and passenger died in the second.

The 2011 year started very badly with two fatal accidents in January and continued in that vein throughout the year to total six fatal accidents. The death toll was eight — five certificated pilots, one student pilot under instruction and two passengers. It was another very bad year, but it could have been horrific — thankfully, there were no serious casualties when an aircraft, with two persons on board, flew into an operating fairground Ferris wheel. See the Australian Transport Safety Bureau preliminary report.

The total fatal accidents for the five years 2007–2011 was 22 (4.4 per year) with 31 deaths. The answer to the question — "Does it look like recreational aviators are now getting safer and that there is less chance of fatal accidents?" — is that they are probably not. Certainly we are not improving quickly enough!

I'm a good pilot. I have my pilot certificate, my endorsements and 100s of hours. I feel I am competent enough and sensible enough to avoid an accident. Why should I worry?

Competency is more than making an excellent landing after a calm flight around the area in fair weather. It has been defined as the combination of knowledge, skills and attitude required to perform a task well — or to operate an aircraft safely and in all foreseeable situations. A flight operation — even in the most basic low-momentum ultralight aircraft — is a complex interaction of pilot, machine, practical physics, airspace structures, traffic, weather, planning and risk. When each and every flight is undertaken it is not only the aircraft that should be assessed for airworthiness; the total environment — airframe, engine, avionics, pilot, atmospheric conditions and flight planning — must allow for the safe, successful conclusion of each operation.

The remarks of an instructor, following a very hazardous landing on icy grass, are pertinent: "I have been flying for 45 years and been an RA-Aus instructor for 12 years, but that flight taught me THERE IS ALWAYS MORE TO LEARN".

Airmanship is the cornerstone of pilot competency. It is the perception — founded on the acquired underpinning knowledge — of the state of that total environment and its potential risks that provides the basis for good airmanship and safe, efficient, error-free flight.

Good airmanship is that indefinable something, perhaps just a state of mind, that separates the superior airman/airwoman from the average. It is not a measure of skill or technique or hours flown, nor is it just common sense ( 'good sense and sound judgment in practical matters'); rather it is a measure of a person's awareness of the aircraft and its flight environment, and of their own capabilities and behavioural characteristics, combined with sound judgement, wise decision-making, attention to detail and a high sense of self-discipline.

For example: "The aircraft, with instructor and student on board, was returning to the airfield when a pitch-down occurred; not known to them the elevator control horn assembly had failed. Control stick and trim inputs failed to correct the situation, but a reduction in power did have a correcting influence, although not enough to regain level flight. A satisfactory flight condition was achieved by the pilots pushing their bodies back as far as possible and hanging their arms rearward. A successful landing at the airfield was accomplished."

Insufficient perception, poor judgement, complacency (It'll be OK!) and insufficient self-discipline create a pilot at risk.

What kind of flying makes up your hours. Do you practise engine failure procedures, accelerated stall/unusual attitude recoveries, precise turns, or have you just continually repeated the same operation? Do you try to improve your skills in each flight? Are you aspiring to recognise threats and errors, and manage the risk?

Most recreational pilots, as with most general aviation recreational pilots, accumulate only a small number of hours each year. The average annual hours currently reported by RA-Aus Pilot Certificate holders, excluding instructors and students, is only 35 hours; which means that about 50% are flying less than 35 hours. Perhaps 30 to 40 annual flight hours is enough to maintain just those physical flying skills learned at the ab initio flight school — if the pilot has established a program for self-maintenance of that level of proficiency — but maybe not enough to maintain a high level of cognitive skills: for example situation awareness, judgement and action formulation. (It's perhaps similar to the person who only takes the car out for a couple of hours once a week.)

The difficult decision for many recreational pilots lies in the situation that, for various reasons, they are only able to undertake those few flight hours. Should flying for enjoyment take a back-seat to the imperative for skill improvement and further training?

In addition, having completed flight theory studies sufficient to pass the basic aeronautical knowledge test and achieve the Pilot Certificate, it seems that many, perhaps most, pilots leave it at that, failing to expand their knowledge by further in-depth studies of flight dynamics — or even ultralight essentials like microscale meteorology. Possibly because it involves sometimes difficult detail rather than the broad-brush approach of the flight school manual, and perhaps assuming that such knowledge will be accumulated through subsequent flight experience — also hoping, I guess, that they will inherently know how to survive every learning experience.

For example, here is a learning experience that the trike instructor was lucky to escape from relatively unscathed, as was his paying passenger: "the pilot intended to conduct a trial instructional flight from a grass strip over 250 metres long. The strip was soft after rain but several solo take-offs had been carried out, each clearing the fence at the end of the strip by 75–100 feet. After some test runs with the passenger on board the pilot elected to take-off using a short field technique. The aircraft accelerated until the nose wheel lifted off the ground and then slowed — with the nose wheel sinking back onto the ground. Because he still believed he had sufficient speed in hand, the pilot tried to make it over the fence; but tripped over it. The aircraft was destroyed."

Like the Sunday driver, many pilots are just continually repeating the same flight experience — each year is much the same as the last — so all they accumulate is a repetition of one year's experience. They have no program of deliberately accumulating advanced knowledge or skills, nor have they really absorbed the safety basics that should have been instilled into them over the years: always maintain a safe airspeed near the ground; if the engine has been misbehaving never take off until the problem is identified and fixed; if the engine goes sick in flight, don't try to make it back to base — land as soon as possible; don't continue flight into marginal conditions; and so on.

The bulk of recreational aviation is undertaken by 'amateur' pilots (using the original meaning of the term; i.e. a lover of a particular activity or pastime) with modest piloting skills. But such pilots, whether PPL or Pilot Certificate holders, must still approach aviation with the attitude of a professional.

Too many pilots regard their biennial flight review as a bit of a nuisance, rather than demanding from the reviewer a professional in-depth audit of their competency. Beware your 'friend' the examiner who waives the flight check because he/she is satisfied, by 'discussion and observation', that you are competent. Pay to do the check in a two-seater if your own aircraft is single-seat.

So, a safety problem exists with 'experienced' pilots. Many are just not ensuring that they accumulate adequate post-Certificate knowledge and skills. In short they never really learn much more about flight dynamics and they lack other pertinent knowledge; and worse, they are just not listening and hearing. On the other hand, there are the very puzzling instances, where those who might be regarded as very experienced, expose themselves to extreme risk — when surely they know the dice are loaded against them? For instance we have the 10 000 hour pilot who lost his life and that of his passenger near the top of the Great Dividing Range possibly just because he believed "We can make it under the cloud base!" What may have contributed to that belief and may have led to that possible decision? We just don't know; the only certainty was the location of the wreckage.

Some accumulated beliefs may be dangerously false. For example, the long-time pilot who is convinced that a very light aircraft, caught in a strong lee-side downflow, will always be safe because it will 'go with the flow' when the downflow flattens out near the bottom of the slope.

The sound pilot must understand how the environment parts relate and interact with each other, and judge the likely consequences of any action, deliberate non-action or random event. A systematic approach to continuing improvement in airmanship, plus an ability for self-appraisal, is necessary to achieve that understanding. Don't expect that you can enrol for advanced flight training and somehow that training will reduce your risk exposure to minimum levels. Certainly it will help, but risk management/decision-making is very much in your own hands.

The Flight Manual or Pilot's Operating Handbook for the aircraft model being flown must be fully understood, and the content recollectable, when needed in an emergency. You must be totally familiar with the fuel and electrical systems. For an aircraft type that is regularly flown every switch, knob and lever position must be instantly locatable and identifiable without having to hunt for it. Every item in the pre-start and pre-take-off check-lists should be physically verified before opening the throttle — EVERY TIME. It's often the pilot who doesn't do the full checks — because he (usually a male) did them only an hour ago — that gets caught out. Every flight should be prepared and conducted correctly and precisely, using procedures appropriate to the airspace class and without taking shortcuts — even if just a circuit and landing or flight over to the neighbour's strip is contemplated.

Pilots should be aware that fatigue, anxiety, emotional state — or flying an aircraft that stretches their skill level, or just flying an aircraft they don't like — will affect perception, good judgement and wise decision-making. If you lack flight experience in a wide range of aircraft types you may find that you have insufficient skill to handle an aircraft that introduces new flight behaviour characteristics and which you are flying for the first time.

Most studies of aircraft accidents or incidents reveal not a single cause but a series of interrelated events, warnings or actions which, being allowed to progress without appropriate intervention, march on to a possibly catastrophic crash site. Sometimes the final trigger may be relatively innocuous, but sufficient in itself to totally remove a safety margin previously eroded by other events. A U.S. Navy pilot once wrote "In aviation you very rarely get your head bitten off by a tiger — you usually get nibbled to death by ducks." However U.S. Navy pilots are well-trained, well-informed, self-disciplined team players who do not expose themselves to those situations where the tiger concealed out there WILL leap out and bite your head off.

For example, take the young male pilot, deemed to have been above average at his flight school two years previously and thought likely to become a very capable aviator, who — in a fit of exuberant youthful bravado — succumbed to temptation and took his equally young female friend for a totally illegal low flying demonstration in a RANS Coyote and, when the port wingtip hit a fence line, ended two lives before they had really begun, and deeply scarred the lives of the people who loved them.

Dr Rob Lee, the then Director of the Australian Bureau of Air Safety Investigation, wrote in 1998: "Over 40 years of investigation of general aviation accidents, by BASI and its predecessors, clearly shows that while the immediate circumstances of each accident may well be unique, the underlying (human) factors are always drawn from the same disturbingly familiar cluster — pre-flight preparation and planning, decision making, perception, judgement, fuel management and handling skills". A preliminary study of the factors contributing to fatal general aviation accidents in Australia for the ten years up to 2000 showed that flight planning was a factor in 38% of the accidents, aircraft handling errors in 30% and fuel starvation or exhaustion in 10%. In ultralight aviation the likelihood of engine failure is much higher than in general aviation thus, though engine failure in itself shouldn't cause a serious accident, when combined with faulty judgement it figures prominently amongst our causal factors.

What we are concentrating on in this series — describing those circumstances which significantly increase your exposure to risk — are some aircraft handling errors. The first module is titled 'Don't fly real fast'

'Decreasing your exposure to risk' modules

| Introduction | Don't fly real fast | Don't stall and spin in from a turn |

| Don't land too fast in an emergency | Engine failure after take-off |

| The turn back: possible or impossible — or just unwise? | Wind shear and turbulence |