Hacker News Reader

Comment by wkat4242 | Hacker News Reader

Also, aviation accident investigations aren't really about blame but about future prevention. Even if the outcome is pilot error, it's more about preventing how this error happened in the future than to punish the pilot. Because nobody (well.. almost nobody, think GermanWings) does this on purpose. Either training, information overload, disorientation etc. And also the cooperation of the pilots is paramount. That doesn't really work if they're getting themselves in trouble.

Having said that I don't think a current NTSB investigation would take "i f--ed up" for an answer. They'd want to know why and how. But those were very different times.

View on HN

Also it's extremely rare to find no pilot error. The regulations broadly say "pilot must get acquaintanced with all aspects regarding flight safety" intentionally, so pilot could not say "I didn't know" -- must have known.

But sometimes the pilot followed correct procedure, and the correct procedure was to blame. In those instances the procedure is changed.

Yes or the correct procedure was not correctly written up in the flight manual, not trained on, too hard to find in a pinch etc. Or the situation was so complex it was hard to identify which procedure applied.

True but these days it's very very hard to know everything actively. There's just so very much.

It's understandable when a pilot forgets about that one obscure button that's only used in some edge case only happening on one in 100.000 flights.

These days being a pilot is a lot like being a system engineer especially since the dedicated flight engineer position is gone. Yet also requiring the spatial awareness and manual skills of flying. I'm often surprised how well it still goes with the complexity of modern aircraft.

> I'm often surprised how well it still goes with the complexity of modern aircraft.

Most of that "complexity" are systems that help the pilots, reduce workload and possibility of error. It's really hard to crash a modern airliner.

"It's really hard to crash a modern airliner."

When everything is working as it should be. If it isn't, you want the pilot to understand what is not working and act on it.

I don't think GP is saying anything to the contrary, just that you can find 'pilot error' because however unreasonable that is what is expected.

Essentially the same as ignorance of the law not being a valid defence. I do not know all the laws. I am nevertheless held accountable to them if I am (allegedly) found in contravention of them.

> It's understandable when a pilot forgets about that one obscure button that's only used in some edge case only happening on one in 100.000 flights.

They have recurrent training so they don't forget about those buttons though.

I wouldn't say "extremely rare".

Mechanical failures, maintenance errors, ATC errors, bird strikes, incorrect weather forecasts, etc. are all very common accident causes that are not attributed to pilot error.

EDIT: This article cites a study saying that 69% of general aviation crashes in 2020 were due to pilot error. The remaining 31% is, obviously, still a large number!

https://pilotinstitute.com/aviation-accident-causes/

General aviation stats might not be entirely applicable to commercial aviation, of course. The planes are less redundant, less well maintained, and flown by less experienced crew - it's hard to tell which of those factors will tend to dominate, or whether they cancel out.

Commercial airliners tend to fly themselves to a large extent.

Most of the aircraft used in general aviation are about as good at flying themselves as a motorcycle.

I don’t think this is entirely accurate.

The incident investigation might conclude pilot error, the NTSB isn’t responsible for punishing pilots.

Law enforcement might though, and the employer may too.

That just isn’t in the NTSB report.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com