Random Thoughts - Part Deux [NO POLITICS]

[ScoobsMcGee]

IM from my boss, some info redacted: I have a meeting with *vendor* today to talk about a replacement for *security product*, that they don't have. I'll be out of the office from 11-2.

Me: lol

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

85% (I made that statistic up) of all aircraft accidents are pilot error. The majority of them are fatal. The errors due to mechanical the pilot just lands the aircraft the large majority of the time. Pilot unemployment right now is like 2%... I'm interested to see how that going to effect the commercial statistics.

I think you are close on the pilot error stat (seems like its more around 75% as I recall). Sometimes Pilot Error is used as a scapegoat though.

Most accidents are not fatal though. From the report I quoted above:

[p1l0t]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I think you are close on the pilot error stat (seems like its more around 75% as I recall). Sometimes Pilot Error is used as a scapegoat though.

Most accidents are not fatal though. From the report I quoted above:

I meant most pilot error accidents usually are, mechanicals are usually not.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Spuds

So a hippie cult of good-looking men with terrible fashion sense jumps out of plane?

How many clicks do you think I could get out of that headline?

SNOWFLAKES FALL FROM SKY
CLICK TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED NEXT

[Tcoat]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

I think you are close on the pilot error stat (seems like its more around 75% as I recall). Sometimes Pilot Error is used as a scapegoat though.

Most accidents are not fatal though. From the report I quoted above:

I presume these include such things as skidding off a runway at low speed, non severe bird strikes, hitting objects while taxing, or other such non flight related occurrences? Pretty much everything must be reported I assume.
That would really skew the stats when comparing against cars where such minor (relative to the possibilities) incidents are not recorded.

[p1l0t]

Originally Posted by Tcoat

I presume these include such things as skidding off a runway at low speed, non severe bird strikes, hitting objects while taxing, or other such non flight related occurrences? Pretty much everything must be reported I assume.
That would really skew the stats when comparing against cars where such minor (relative to the possibilities) incidents are not recorded.

We also have separate definitions for 'incidents' and 'accidents.' Accidents being the more serious. Many of the things you described would be under incidents. Although I don't know if these stats are using the term accident interchangeably with incident...

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[ScoobsMcGee]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

We also have separate definitions for 'incidents' and 'accidents.' Accidents being the more serious. Many of the things you described would be under incidents. Although I don't know if these stats are using the term accident interchangeably with incident...

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

We also have separate definitions for 'incidents' and 'accidents.' Accidents being the more serious. Many of the things you described would be under incidents. Although I don't know if these stats are using the term accident interchangeably with incident...

My understanding is this covers accidents, which qualify as the more serious type as @p1l0t points out, and usually involve some aspect of flight.


In the end, its a risky endeavor, but like any the risk can be managed and those involved in it understand and accept the risk.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

I meant most pilot error accidents usually are, mechanicals are usually not.

And that's where it gets sticky. A fatal crash resulting from a pilot attempting to make an engine out landing could be classified as a "pilot error" if the pilot makes a decision that takes a survivable accident and turns it into a fatal accident, even though the pilot would not have made the error had the engine not failed.

The pilot error is not the root cause of the accident, but it is the root cause of the fatality.

[p1l0t]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

My understanding is this covers accidents, which qualify as the more serious type as @p1l0t points out, and usually involve some aspect of flight.


In the end, its a risky endeavor, but like any the risk can be managed and those involved in it understand and accept the risk.

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

And that's where it gets sticky. A fatal crash resulting from a pilot attempting to make an engine out landing could be classified as a "pilot error" if the pilot makes a decision that takes a survivable accident and turns it into a fatal accident, even though the pilot would not have made the error had the engine not failed.

The pilot error is not the root cause of the accident, but it is the root cause of the fatality.

Well yeah it's ALWAYS the pilot's fault. To the point sometimes it seems that unless you have concrete science to blame an engineer or something the pilot should never have got out of bed in the morning. It's like when there is a weather related accident and they say well the pilot never should have departed to begin with. And there is some truth to that, actually most our decision planning (including contingency plans for our contingency plans) are made before we even launch. That being said if I decided not to fly everytime there was a thunderstorm in the forecast I would have flown all of about 3 days this summer. And summer is the high season when we make all the money.

You might like this article:
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/safety

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

And that's where it gets sticky. A fatal crash resulting from a pilot attempting to make an engine out landing could be classified as a "pilot error" if the pilot makes a decision that takes a survivable accident and turns it into a fatal accident, even though the pilot would not have made the error had the engine not failed.

The pilot error is not the root cause of the accident, but it is the root cause of the fatality.

But if pilot error isn't the root cause, they have to find a living person to blame, and that gets messy.

Sorry, my cynic is showing.

[Spuds]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

Well yeah it's ALWAYS the pilot's fault. To the point sometimes it seems that unless you have concrete science to blame an engineer or something the pilot should never have got out of bed in the morning. It's like when there is a weather related accident and they say well the pilot never should have departed to begin with. And there is some truth to that, actually most our decision planning (including contingency plans for our contingency plans) are made before we even launch. That being said if I decided not to fly everytime there was a thunderstorm in the forecast I would have flown all of about 3 days this summer. And summer is the high season when we make all the money.

You might like this article:
http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/safety

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

He's a pilot and his name is Greenspun... At least it's not Flatspun.

[x808drifter]

@humfrz Going back to the epipen.

Storage for 3 years in most likely under controlled storage, not in a 120 degree car.

[spike021]

Sitting at the dealer now while they swap in the replacement steering wheel.

The manager checked my rust spot and blamed it on a windshield swap, and he felt strongly I had it swapped due to the windshield manufacturer text (on bottom of driver side) not saying "Subaru". According to him a rust issue or chip like that is usually from someone doing the windshield swap. First he asked if I bought the car new, and then where I bought it, so I said "I bought it here and it's the same glass the car had when I picked it up". So he then asked the tech advisor if BRZs' windshields say Subaru, but the advisor didn't know. So I think he was going to look into it.

Decided to look at a bunch of cars on the lot: all BRZs' windshields say the same thing as mine and don't have Subaru printed; all non-BRZs that I checked (Crosstrek, Impreza, etc.) do say Subaru. I asked someone I know with an 860 what his said, and it's the same as the BRZs. So I'm guessing the FT86 platform is supplied with a different manufacturer's glass.

Now I have pics/proof so if there's an issue with him verifying later when I pick up the car then I'll be able to show what I found.

Hoping there won't be a problem though. The service center here has otherwise been good to me as you guys know. Maybe he just doesn't want to pay for the repair work (but then again isn't that covered under SoA warranty, so the dealer itself wouldn't be paying?).