What is the right attitude

[Flyfisherman79]

So there is all this heat going around about the low flying 500, and people having the wrong attitude about flying, safe vs unsafe, etc so I am going to ask the question to the older pilots and cheif pilots out there:

 

What is the right attitude? What is the desireable attitude? Why?

 

Keep this in mind when answering this question: Do you progress in anything that you choose to do without pushing your comfort zone, accepting some risk, and honing skills?

 

Do you become a proficient and well-rounded "winter driver" if you have never broken traction on ice and been forced to recover - stepping out of your comfort zone? Or am I just unfit to operate a vehicle? I can say that by pushing boundaries (at the appropriate times) I have learned to save my butt. I have also been forced to save my butt MANY times on winter roads. I was only successful in that because I went out and spun cookies on ice and learned how to recover from it. They don't teach that in drivers ed.

 

Do you become a proficient and well-rounded Skiier / snowboarder if you never progress from the bunny hill and drop into something a little steeper and deeper than the norm? I can say I am confident in my abilities with a board strapped to my feet, in waist deep power, deep in the trees. you dont learn those skills by staying on the bunny hill.

 

Do you become a well-rounded marksman by never shooting at a target that is smaller and further away? By punching gophers back down their hole out past 300 yards with my .223 and shooting pop cans to 60 yards with my .45 has developed "marksman" skills.

 

Yep, I've bent up a couple cars, torn up some snowboards, and missed many-a-shots with my firearms, but the last time I checked that is how you learn, progress, become skilled and proficient, become wise, safe, and experienced.

 

Same with ANYTHING. But in reading about this stuff in regards to flying, as soon as you leave the traffic pattern and drop below 700 AGL you are unsafe, endangering the world, bound to simply die, destroy aircraft, have a bad attitude and henceforth unwanted as an employee. Your career ends right there! Am I missing something here, or is it just another case of extremism in differing views? What is the right attitude?

 

Please, lets keep this one professional and not get it closed down. Keep the emotion and extremism out of it as well....as thats the only way the topic can remain professional. Thanks

[Jocko]

This is gonna be good My hat is off to you for this one I too am interested in the responces that will follow

[canook pilot]

The right attitude is the one that doesn't break any rules and allows you to get down safely. The one thing you don't want is to be so high that if you have a oil line break at 10,000 ft. on the trans, and it takes you over 5 mins. to get down. What do you do than? More than likely kiss your ass good bye!!!!

[Nuke]

There is no right or wrong attitude!

Flying, like life is made up of all attitudes. We have the cowboys and we have the straight and level types. How do I say it...., The Yin and the Yang! You need bad pilots in order to have good pilots! If not, we would all be boring and mundane.

Without the difference in attitudes, there would be no need for CRM training, life in the cockpit would be always harmonious! ie...Boring!

[dlo]

great post flyfisherman,

 

Like nuke said , their is no one attitude to have towards flying. It would be like having the same exact attitudes in taxi drivers in New York. It just ain't gonna happen. Some of the safest pilots wreck and some of the stupidest pilots wreck. Yes some of the safe pilots make stupid mistakes and crash.

 

Just like that hover video in this thread, where the pax hit the cyclic and almost crashed on the ground.... Since the pilot probably told the pax not to move around and touch things, plus it is common sense. who's fault is this crash to blame. the pax for bumping the cyclic, or the pilot for maybe not telling him not to reach around, or pilot cause he should of been watching his pax better????????

 

whats safe to one person is not safe to another. the firebirds think it is safe to do their hammerheads, cause they have done them 1,000 times. where most of us say hammerheads are extremely dangerous and should never be tried...

[bossman]

There is no right or wrong attitude!

Flying, like life is made up of all attitudes. We have the cowboys and we have the straight and level types. How do I say it...., The Yin and the Yang! You need bad pilots in order to have good pilots! If not, we would all be boring and mundane.

Without the difference in attitudes, there would be no need for CRM training, life in the cockpit would be always harmonious! ie...Boring!

Nuke,

Are you putting "cowboys" in the bad pilot column? What are you calling a "cowboy"? Is the pilot of the 500 with the saw hanging under it, a "cowboy"? Is the pipeline patrol pilot that flies NOE all day long, a "cowboy"? Is the firefighting pilot that drops into a tree lined river to fill his bucket, a "cowboy"? These people spend their lives in the dead man's zone. One burp, one snap, one crackel, one pop, and they've had a bad day. They are not "cowboys". They are not bad pilots. They are well trained people doing an extremely dangerous job, because they love it. You have to love it to be able to stand the stress and strain. We go out everyday and strap on 3000 moving parts that are all doing their best to go in opposite directions and trying to cause us great bodily harm. So I guess that I'm a "cowboy" because I do the job. We train pilots to do the job. The job itself, will separate pilots. Quite a few pilots do not want to put themselves into the dead man's zone day after day. That's their decision. They become the straight and level guys you talk about. I respect their decision. It's what they want to do. They love the job, too. I think that if you can't say, "Been There Done That", then don't be too quick to put pilots into bad pilot, good pilot, categories. One man's so called un-safe flying may be the other man's job. We each need to be aware of our own capabilities and the capabilities of the aircraft. I'll be quiet now.

bossman

[Gerhardt]

"Yep, I've bent up a couple cars, torn up some snowboards, and missed many-a-shots with my firearms, but the last time I checked that is how you learn, progress, become skilled and proficient, become wise, safe, and experienced. "

 

 

Not to take you to the woodshed for the comment, but when you start pushing your luck in an aircraft you typically do not learn, progress, become skilled and proficient, wise, safe and experienced. Eventually every pilot here will have something unexpected happen with him or the aircraft and if you're pulling a dumbass maneuver at the time it could very well be your last. Not to mention that every time you succeed doing something goofy it makes it seem a little more the norm to you. And that's dangerous. I know pilots that have pushed their luck flying low on fuel, scudrunning in bad weather, pushing their way through storms, etc. In my mind that's no different than pilots that are fond of making banking turns while hover taxiing. It is not okay to get your thrills by flying at anything less than 100% safety.

 

Call me boring, but you'll find me flying absolutely as safely as possible. When there's a (necessary) maneuver I want to learn I'll have an experienced CFI by my side showing me how it's done. As for the video, I'm sure the pilot had done a recon so he knew there were no new wires, etc. and he wasn't pulling any feats...just flying low in a river. Not the smartest move but to each his own.

 

I'm not trying to put down anyone here, really. Please don't take it that way. I just don't want a 20 hour newbie on his first solo thinking it's alright to try a trick he saw when his CFI said "I'm gonna do this, but don't you try it". <- - - Yes, I've heard that by a former CFI of mine while doing a torque turn. And every time he sees other pilots doing something stupid he thinks to himself that eventually he'll be good enough to fly like that.

[Jocko]

Well I’m gonna stir the pot a bit. <_>

 

"It is not okay to get your thrills by flying at anything less than 100% safety. "

 

I think that makes the point that Flyfisherman79 was trying to make. It seems to me to be a fairly blanket statement that appears to be quite narrow minded. What I think has been left out is the all important fact is that it was just your opinion and not necessarily the law of the land. The other problem with it is it is Totally subjective.

 

Have fun

 

Rock on

[Linc]

Well, there's the professional pilot who does those things because the job demands it, and there's the pilot who does those things because it looked or sounded cool.

 

First, though: "100% Safety" is a catch phrase and means absolutely nothing. If you want 100% safety, don't crank the engine and take off. Only then can you guarantee 100% in aviation safety. Any pilot who takes off from the ground and isn't ready to pass on to the next realm of existence or non-existence isn't really prepared for anything that could happen in the air. Like many others, I've spent the majority of my career inside the deadman's curve, and I'd be ignorant not to face that fact every time I lift off from the ground.

 

Having said that, there are those who manage risks, and those others who gamble that the odds will fall in their favor. If you bet on the statistics ending up on your side (engines rarely fail, aircraft is the most survivable) to provide you with a margin of safety, I would say you're a gambler. If you take steps to attempt to control the outcome, I would call you a prudent pilot. Still, we have accidents because pilots, both prudent and otherwise, make less than prudent choices.

[Nuke]

Nuke,

Are you putting "cowboys" in the bad pilot column? What are you calling a "cowboy"? Is the pilot of the 500 with the saw hanging under it, a "cowboy"? Is the pipeline patrol pilot that flies NOE all day long, a "cowboy"? Is the firefighting pilot that drops into a tree lined river to fill his bucket, a "cowboy"? These people spend their lives in the dead man's zone. One burp, one snap, one crackel, one pop, and they've had a bad day. They are not "cowboys". They are not bad pilots. They are well trained people doing an extremely dangerous job, because they love it. You have to love it to be able to stand the stress and strain. We go out everyday and strap on 3000 moving parts that are all doing their best to go in opposite directions and trying to cause us great bodily harm. So I guess that I'm a "cowboy" because I do the job. We train pilots to do the job. The job itself, will separate pilots. Quite a few pilots do not want to put themselves into the dead man's zone day after day. That's their decision. They become the straight and level guys you talk about. I respect their decision. It's what they want to do. They love the job, too. I think that if you can't say, "Been There Done That", then don't be too quick to put pilots into bad pilot, good pilot, categories. One man's so called un-safe flying may be the other man's job. We each need to be aware of our own capabilities and the capabilities of the aircraft. I'll be quiet now.

bossman

Well Bossman, Your panties seem to be in a tight wad today!

The term Cowboy is not in reference to the type of flying that one needs to do to complete their mission/job!

It is in reference to the way one attacks the mission! While slinging a saw or NOE, these types of flying still have limits! They also have standardized ways to complete these missions as safely as possible! Yes they may be more dangerous than flying up and down the beach, but the risk still needs to be mitigated and managed!

It's the Cowboys that push beyond the risk matrix to hang it out there beyond the limits regardless of the type of flying they do.

 

So, now Bossman....are you a Cowboy?

[bossman]

Well Bossman, Your panties seem to be in a tight wad today!

The term Cowboy is not in reference to the type of flying that one needs to do to complete their mission/job!

It is in reference to the way one attacks the mission! While slinging a saw or NOE, these types of flying still have limits! They also have standardized ways to complete these missions as safely as possible! Yes they may be more dangerous than flying up and down the beach, but the risk still needs to be mitigated and managed!

It's the Cowboys that push beyond the risk matrix to hang it out there beyond the limits regardless of the type of flying they do.

 

So, now Bossman....are you a Cowboy?

Yep, pardner, I guess I am. I always attack the mission. No retreat. "Been There Done That". I just can't seem to help it.

bossman

[Bristol]

I put the "cowboys" in the "stuipd and unsafe" column. (That includes the pilot of the 500 scud running the riverbed), keep these guys out of my way and I have no desire to fly with those kind of guys. If you're gonna kill yourself doing something stupid, do it by yourself away from the rest of us.

 

I put the "cowboys" in the "great job" column if their cowboy flying saves lives.

 

I put the Safe and Sane guys in the "Safe and Sane" column. (

 

I put the guys that fly dangerous missions that require a different style of flying (like moose tagging, or tree trimming, EMT), in the column labled "insane, but making a living"

 

 

That's my 2 cents...

[Witch]

Have any of ya'll ever gone down an abandoned mine shaft in the middle of the desert?

 

I mention this because I, my brother, and a few of his friends found a shaft and went inside to explore. I took some pictures and showed them to the guys at work. My supervisor also saw a few and the next thing I know I'm at attention in front of the First Sergeant explaining why I was in an abandoned mine shaft with no breathing apperatus, hard hat, or other safety equipment. He went on about safety, mine collapse, methane gasses, how we could have been killed or seriously wounded, etc... I got a Letter of Repremand out of that. At the time it didn't make sense though. On one hand they want you around to do tasks, but on the other hand they send you into harms way to do tasks. I reckon it might be a bit difficult to work on a generator with bullets flying around. Oh yeah, I'm supposed to grab an M-16 and shoot back. I forgot about that part.

 

Seems that when one is in the military, one must be safe. That's the main theme, safety. Even at Commander's Call, "Don't drink and drive" and "Wear your seatbelt" were the mantras.

 

Things are different in the civillian world-more risk, more choices... I think that even though our occupation has rules and regulations, they can be "modified" to accomplish a goal. This has been the premise of the American spirit. To take chances, to go beyond the norm, to do the impossible.

 

I can remember the shuttle incidents. After the first one, there were outcries to stop the program because space flight was too dangerous. I ask you what isn't? The same was repeated after the last one. Do we need paople in space? Robots can do it without the risk to humans. Maybe so, but then what?

 

Life is a death sentence. That's what a friend told me once. I get it. There's no guarantee that one will not die. We're all going to die. Some would rather die doing something thrilling and others in their sleep. Some will die quickly, others slowly and in agony.

 

I'm just gonna let others be. If they want to fly low and fast, who am I to critisize? Have you ever gone down an abandoned mine shaft in the middle of the desert?

 

Later

[PhotoFlyer]

As was previously stated, there are no right and wrong attitudes, there are only decisions.

 

However, if someone wanted the "right" attitude defined, I think it would be something like this: A safety conscious pilot, who considers the risks and rewards of his decisions. This pilot will fly in a manner that will complete his mission in the safest manner possible, and will decline a mission if it cannot be accomplished with acceptable risks, keeping in mind that what is acceptable to him, may not be acceptable to others. This pilot will understand the difference between taking risks because it is fun and exciting, and taking risks because it is necessary to complete a mission. The fact that a particular risk is uncalled for will not deter this pilot from taking said risk, but he will completely understand that risk, and the consequences of his decision to take that risk. If the pilot is taking such a risk, he will insure that his actions do not put persons or their property in a position where that cannot control THEIR risk, due to his actions. This pilot will follow any applicable regulations, as closely as possible, but will not hesitate to violate those regulations in the interest of safety.

 

Such a pilot would not be afraid to make mistakes, and he would understand that he can learn from his mistakes, so that he does not repeat them. He will share his mistakes, and his solution, with other pilots in order to help them avoid the same mistake. He will fly with his cargo and passengers in mind, knowing that they may not all love helicopters and all of their capabilities. He will expand his limits, but no so far as to exceed his own, or the helicopters safety envelope. He will always try to become a better pilot than he is today, and will recognize that he will never be a perfect pilot, or know it all. If, despite himself, he begins to think he is perfect or knows it all, he will have entrusted his friends and coworkers to "put him in his place," before he kills himself or others.

 

Most of all, he will realize that not all pilots make good choices. And, although he may not agree, he must help those pilots fix their mistakes. He will help them learn, he will help them pick up the pieces, and he will mourn when they are lost, because in the end, we all need each other to survive.

 

I'm sorry if you disagree, but we are all entitled to our opinions, and since this is a community forum, we are all entitled to present our opinions. That includes you, but it does not allow you to "fling mud" because you disagree. I welcome your disagreement, and invite you to a civil conversation where you present your opinion, and your opinion of mine. I will do the same...

 

--PF

[Jocko]

First, though: "100% Safety" is a catch phrase and means absolutely nothing. If you want 100% safety, don't crank the engine and take off. Only then can you guarantee 100% in aviation safety. Any pilot who takes off from the ground and isn't ready to pass on to the next realm of existence or non-existence isn't really prepared for anything that could happen in the air. Like many others, I've spent the majority of my career inside the deadman's curve, and I'd be ignorant not to face that fact every time I lift off from the ground.

 

Link, Wow, that was well said and I would have to say the first time the heart of this discussion has been put into such eloquent prose. My hat is off to you.

 

 

that was till I read PF's post.

That in a nut shell sums up the preferred thought process of any pilot and if you don't mind PF I will steal it and use it when necessary!

 

Now this is what I call a productive thread I knew ya'll could do it

 

Yeah I know I'm a smart as* but what can ya do?

 

Rock on

[Tenacious T]

As was previously stated, there are no right and wrong attitudes, there are only decisions.

 

However, if someone wanted the "right" attitude defined, I think it would be something like this: A safety conscious pilot, who considers the risks and rewards of his decisions. This pilot will fly in a manner that will complete his mission in the safest manner possible, and will decline a mission if it cannot be accomplished with acceptable risks, keeping in mind that what is acceptable to him, may not be acceptable to others. This pilot will understand the difference between taking risks because it is fun and exciting, and taking risks because it is necessary to complete a mission. The fact that a particular risk is uncalled for will not deter this pilot from taking said risk, but he will completely understand that risk, and the consequences of his decision to take that risk. If the pilot is taking such a risk, he will insure that his actions do not put persons or their property in a position where that cannot control THEIR risk, due to his actions. This pilot will follow any applicable regulations, as closely as possible, but will not hesitate to violate those regulations in the interest of safety.

 

Such a pilot would not be afraid to make mistakes, and he would understand that he can learn from his mistakes, so that he does not repeat them. He will share his mistakes, and his solution, with other pilots in order to help them avoid the same mistake. He will fly with his cargo and passengers in mind, knowing that they may not all love helicopters and all of their capabilities. He will expand his limits, but no so far as to exceed his own, or the helicopters safety envelope. He will always try to become a better pilot than he is today, and will recognize that he will never be a perfect pilot, or know it all. If, despite himself, he begins to think he is perfect or knows it all, he will have entrusted his friends and coworkers to "put him in his place," before he kills himself or others.

 

Most of all, he will realize that not all pilots make good choices. And, although he may not agree, he must help those pilots fix their mistakes. He will help them learn, he will help them pick up the pieces, and he will mourn when they are lost, because in the end, we all need each other to survive.

 

I'm sorry if you disagree, but we are all entitled to our opinions, and since this is a community forum, we are all entitled to present our opinions. That includes you, but it does not allow you to "fling mud" because you disagree. I welcome your disagreement, and invite you to a civil conversation where you present your opinion, and your opinion of mine. I will do the same...

 

--PF

 

Well said.

 

My 2 cents= Flying a helicopter is inherently risky (duh). Some risks are necessary to complete the mission, whatever it may be. I think an unsafe pilot is one who takes unnecessary risks. This may seem over simplified compared to some other answers but I feel it boils down to this.

[Flyfisherman79]

Photo Flyer - Thanks for the reply. That is the kind of response I was looking to read on here. Thanks for taking the time.

[Linc]

Link, Wow, that was well said and I would have to say the first time the heart of this discussion has been put into such eloquent prose. My hat is off to you.

 

that was till I read PF's post.

That in a nut shell sums up the preferred thought process of any pilot and if you don't mind PF I will steal it and use it when necessary!

 

Now this is what I call a productive thread I knew ya'll could do it

 

Yeah I know I'm a smart as* but what can ya do?

 

Rock on

Mine is the short version, for those with short attention spans...like mine.

[Jeff]

I think Dirty Harry said it best: "A man's got to know his limitations!" I have low helicopter time and no time whatsoever in extremely low-level operations. I would not fly the 500 over the river like that guy did. But I wouldn't say it is stupid for someone with experience in that sort of flying, i.e. low-level military ops.

 

If you desire to expand your limitations, do it in a safe way. Living in Ohio most of my life, I would get some good mountain training experience before flying out West. I recommend that graduates of pilot factories in Florida and Arizona take an experienced instrument pilot or instructor and get some actual IFR experience before doing any serious weather flying. If someone wants to fly low-level, they should get training from an experienced pilot or instructor. If you have no desire to expand your limitations, you may be in for a boring ride, which is not why most of us started to fly in the first place.

[PhotoFlyer]

...That in a nut shell sums up the preferred thought process of any pilot and if you don't mind PF I will steal it and use it when necessary!...

 

No need to steal anything, it is there for your use!

 

I didn't really know what I was writing, until I finished and went back to read it. Then I realized that I could learn something from myself if I just stopped and listened. I think we all could...

 

--PF

[joker]

There are two concepts I will discuss here. Risk Orientation and the Experience / Education Spectrum.

 

The study of 'Risk Orientation' (the grouping of people's approach to risk) is well documented.

 

Here is an extract from just one research document.

 

People adopt different approaches to risk, their "risk orientation", and there are three different risk taking types, namely "risk avoiders" (who avoid activities due to the risks involved), "risk reducers" (who participate in high risk activities in spite of the risks involved), and "risk optimisers" (who participate in high risk activities partly because of the risks involved). The figure below illustrates how risk orientation and level of perceived risk may interact to determine the overall acceptability.

 

 

RiskTaking.co.uk- © 2003 David J. Llewellyn</a>

 

This thread is asks what is the ‘right attitude’ attitude. PhotoFlyer has written a text book answer, which can be applied to almost activity (at the professional level) as being what I would also consider to be 'the right attitude'.

 

What he describes, is somewhere between a 'risk avoider' and a 'risk reducer'. There is a third grouping which is known as 'risk optimisers'. They are the ones who seek risks.

 

The studies show that risk orientation is mostly a personality trait. As we know, personalities don't change much during a lifetime, and so a person's risk orientation generally won't change.

 

Another factor which I will add to the discussion is a person's ability to successfully assess risk. This does change as it is directly linked to two main elements; experience and education.

 

In this respect, we can all place ourselves along a spectrum of 'experience and education' (the EE spectrum). This spectrum concept may be applied for a specific kind of mission, or it may be applied in general terms. For clarity's sake, think for the moment of an SAR mission to rescue sailors caught in a storm.

 

At one end are those who are good risk assessors - High EE. They have the education. This means they have the theoretical knowledge, and the appropriate training for that activity. They understand what they have learnt. They also have experience. They have ‘been there, done that, and survived. Each time they did, they banked that experience to be used in later life. While experience in the particular activity is most important, experiences from other activities will also be drawn from.

 

At the other end are poor risk assessors. - Low EE For a given mission, these people are poor risk assessors due to their lacking in experience or education or both elements. These people need to be guided by more experienced people. Hence the reason why we impose limits on students. Successful risk assessment also requires both elements in appropriate proportions. A massive imbalance of one or the otheris most dangerous as it will lead to a belief that the risk assessment is better than it actually is.

Note: The term 'poor' here is used relative to the mission. When working within the boundries of their actual experience and education, a low EE person will still be able to make safe risk assessments. - the ultimate is to say, "I'm not ready for this."

 

So in addition to having the right 'Risk Orientation', it is important for an individual recognise his own position on the EE spectrum.

 

Danger lies when someone believes that he has more education or more experience than he actually does. This is also incompatible in aviation.

 

As people viewed the video on the other thread, they made judgments based on their own position on the EE spectrum and their Risk Orientation. They can loosely be placed onto a matrix of six groups.

 

Group 1 - Risk Avoiders with High EE - These people would never take this flight and cannot understand how someone else could. They never step beyond their comfort zone. They are often angered by Group C people.

 

Group 2 - Risk Reducers with High EE - These people are the ones who identify those risks exist, and therefore will not generally approve of such flights as seen on the videos. However, they believe that the risks of such flights can be reduced to almost a minimum. They accept a risk to achieve a goal, but will take steps to reduce that risk before doing so.

 

Group 3 - Risk Optimisers with High EE - These people also identify the risks involved with the flight, but watching it invokes an emotional response which draws them to want to mimic that action. However, the thrill is dulled by their knowledge of the risks, the fact that they have probably already been there and done that. They are generally the most skillful pilots. It takes a lot to impress this group. They are the test pilots, and the acrobatic pilots of this world. It should be no surprise that they are the smallest group in terms of numbers.

 

Group A - Risk Avoiders with Low EE - These people usually are indifferent to this sort of video. They know it is not the sort of thing they'd ever do, but don't yet see what all the fuss from Group 1 is.

 

Group B - Risk Reducers with Low EE - These people generally like this video. They believe that although they are not ready themselves, they believe that as their experience and education increase, they will be able to do this. They look forward to this time.

 

Group C - Risk Optimisers with Low EE - These people get the largest thrill out of this kind of video. However, these people are the most at risk by watching this sort of video. They are the ones, who think it is 'cool' and 'awesome' and are most likely to try and mimic this before they have the education and experience to do it. They cannot understand the risk, yet are drawn to it. They forget that the video might be performed by a highly skilled pilot, who is more than capable to make that flight. The emotions they get from watching mask that fact. They are angered by those in Group 1, believing that Group 1 people are simply 'kill-joys' and boring and continually trying to suppress their fun. These people joined the industry looking for the excitement and 'cool factor' but are blind to the reality that only a minority of this group will go on to succeed in aviation. For most of them will be weeded out of the industry during 'career' job interview system, where aviation will quickly identify cowboys. Unfortunately for some families and loved ones, others will be weeded out by natural selection.

 

So there we have it. Turning back to the original question, I have tried to combine both attitude (Llewellyn's Risk Orientation theories) and experience and education.

 

Purely in terms of EE alone, then of course having high EE is most desirable to make a safer pilot.

 

However, experience requires time to develop. Most desirable therefore is someone who can recognise his place on the EE spectrum.

 

If you can understand the two concepts above, it will not surprise you to see the range of responses to the videos that we had on this site recently. Those reading these threads are people on both ends of the spectrum and in all risk orientation groups. You should not be angered by people from one group or another. Instead you should try to understand them.

 

There is place for all types of risk orientation in aviation. It depends on the job we are doing.

 

We do need some 'Risk Optimisers' in order to advance our technology and understanding of aviation.

 

However, for most aspects of aviation, risk optimisers are incompatible. That's because most aspects of aviation deal with other people. It is absolutely unacceptable to take unnecessary risks when other people's lives or property is at risk. Taking a calculated risk is appropriate if the mission warrants it. That’s where high EE comes in. High experience and education is necessary to determine whether the mission does or doesn't warrant the risks. It is why you don't see 500hr SAR captains!

 

Risk Avoiders would be terrible as SAR pilots or as sling loaders. They would turn down too many rescue flight without trying to find ways to make the flight safer. No one would get rescued! They wouldn't feel comfortable working inside the HV curve, always worrying about an engine failure. However, they might make the best public transport or tour pilots – they move the pax from A to B or complete the tour around Vagas in as safe a manner as possible, without being tempted to 'show off' in some way - they would have no problem with turning down a mission if they saw a risk in it.

 

Risk Reducers may be the most appropriate for the SAR and sling loading jobs. Maybe instructors should also be 'risk reducers'. They definitely should not be risk optimisers.

 

While most of aviation requires risks to be carefully managed (risk avoidance or risk reduction), there is a small place for the third risk orientation in our industry, risk optimisers.

 

Whatever your 'Risk Orientation', what you need most of all though, is the ability to judge your own limits, skill and ability; to develop your EE together, and to recognise where you are on that spectrum.

 

Some food for thought.

 

Joker

Edited November 21, 2006 by joker

[500E]

Great Reply JOKER

My feeling pretty much to a T.

During my time I have tried a fair no of things, Sky diving, Ocean racing, A fair few Car disciplines ( race & rally ), then I started to fly Helicopters !!! .

The way I have approached all is to find out as much as possible first by reading, then go find some one that has done it, talk to them about their experiences including the bad bits, make a judgment and either walk away( you would not get me cave diving for any money in the world ) or go for it, that is what I did with Helicopters.

I am not averse to risk and have made bad judgment decisions on more than one occasion but been lucky or had more skill than I thought and managed to survive.

BUT hopefully I did not put others at risk at the same time, to do that puts the risk beyond my personal boundary.

My feeling about the original thread, was rather gung ho and did not give the new pilots or the myriad of other people who read these posts the write impression.

Posters remember there are corporate suits, insurance actuaries, Hirers, who use these posts to get a point of view so be sensible! also low time pilots could be encouraged to fly beyond their capability's I know when I was 18 the more experienced drivers talk encouraged me to take risks that if anything had gone wrong I did not have the knowledge to cope with, AND lost friends for that reason.

I am not pointing the finger at the pilot but at the general tone of the posts! eg. cant wait to try that, I presume the 500 pilot had a high No. of hours and was used to flying in confined space ?

 

 

Fly the dream fly 500