By THOMAS P. TURNER
The time has come for us to stop thinking about flying safety. Only a minority of the pilot population wants to hear about it.
Tell a pilot you think something is unsafe, and he or she will counter that they feel it’s an acceptable risk. Nothing about flying is perfectly safe, except not flying at all.
Safety is a very subjective standard. No one thinks they are unsafe. But rarely are they making that judgment objectively.
We define safety as the absence of accidents — but is “not crashing the airplane” really the best we can do?
Safety is not a strategy
Safety is an outcome, not a strategy. We make choices we perceive to be safe, but the result still depends on how well we fly and manage the airplane.
When an examiner hands you a temporary airman certificate he or she tells you that you have a “license to learn.”
One of the biggest problems in aviation “safety” is that pilots are given structure up to the point of the checkride, but no guidance on what to do afterward. We’re left to exercise that “license to learn” on our own…to learn haphazardly, if we learn at all.
In far too many cases, instead of growing as a pilot, we let our skills atrophy to the minimum necessary to get away with the specific type of flying we usually do…as long as nothing unusual happens.
Instead of safety, we should use the word mastery as the goal we strive to attain.
Mastery says you meet and exceed objective standards. A goal of mastery affirms that passing a checkride signifies completing only the first phase of a lifelong odyssey, not the end of learning.
Unlike saying, “I fly safely” (which sounds passive), to say “I fly with mastery” indicates an active commitment to high standards, including continuous improvement using objective measurements of professionalism that produce results.
For example, I continually compare my performance to the standards I was required to demonstrate on my ATP checkride. But even before I was preparing for my ATP Practical Test, I used ATP standards as my goal.
I use this objective measure when debriefing my performance after a flight. Did I fly that approach to ATP standards? Did I touch down on speed and in configuration in my identified landing zone? If not, what do I need to do to attain that level of mastery?
The Airman Certification Standards/Practical Test Standards are measurable indicators of aircraft mastery. Anything less means you’re failing to pursue mastery of flight.
Earn your stripes
The stick-and-rudder skills of the Practical Test Standards/Airman Certification Standards are still just part of what it takes to truly master your aircraft. As Pilot-in-Command you need to act like an ATP. That’s the skill our passengers expect us to have, and the level of expertise we want and need the public to perceive general aviation pilots to be — the captain of an airplane.
The universal symbol of the captain of an aircraft is the four-stripe epaulet. These four stripes symbolize the experience, expertise and professionalism of an airplane commander. They identify specific things you can do to earn those stripes after earning your wings — as you exercise your license to learn.
Mastering your aircraft (not just “being safe”) requires mastering each of four “stripes”:
- The specific aircraft, including its technology;
- The environment, including airspace, air traffic control (as required) and weather;
- Human factors, including fatigue management and situational awareness;
- Pilot responsibility and command — something given very little attention in pilot training, but that is the essence of mastery of flight.
“Earning your stripes” is equally applicable in a Light-Sport Aircraft or Piper Cub as it is in a twin Cessna, a Baron, a PC-12, a King Air and a single-pilot Citation Mustang. The only distinction is the topics and tasks you must address to develop mastery of the airplane you fly, in the way you fly it.
Mastery is not something you pursue and then “graduate.” It is the life-long process of retaining existing skills as you develop new ones in achieving mastery of your aircraft.
If you fly with mastery you will still not be completely safe. You accept risk in all things, and in personal and business aviation you freely choose to take on much more risk (and responsibility) than most people seem willing to accept.
But you will be as safe as the circumstances that arise in the conditions you choose to face will permit. It’s up to you to make a masterful decision about the conditions, and be ready to masterfully handle any circumstances you then face.
So the time has come for us to stop thinking about flying safety. We need to think about attaining and retaining the skills and experiences needed to master our aircraft and the environment in which we choose to fly.
If you master your airplane, you and those who place their trust in you will be as safe as can be possible.
Safety is a state of mind or way of living – not a piece of hardware or one time decision.
An excellent article! Have you ever talked with fellow pilots about going to fly in a bit of wind? Practice cross-wind landings– and had them demure? That is a bit of mastering one’s airplane. Knowing how all the black boxes work! GPS is a different world from when we used VOR and its operation was straight forward. I like the idea of mastery and would pursue that as a goal rather than the action-adverse term of safety.
Though I do not like your title, I think your point is correct Tom…it all comes down to attitude! GA flying results in 94% of all aviation fatalities whereas commercial flying is the safest mode of transportation (http://bit.ly/ACcrashStats). Training is a big part too but the ugly word in GA is “discipline.” There probably is too much focus on “fun” and the failure to control the “inner child” results in many wrecks. Continually striving for mastery would certainly move the needle on safety.
It appears that pilots continue to crash and kill themselves is not because they are not safe or have thousands of dollars in avionics in there airplane, it appears to be about that little piece of mush between the ears called,” decision making process” that is letting us down. No matter how safe we think we are, if we make bad decision’s in our planning and executing pilot skills we are setting our selves up for big problems and eventually it will bit us. Ever wonder why high time pilots with all kinds of ratings ATP thousands of hours in their log books continue to crash and take others with them. It has to do with bad decision making at that “moment”, its the nature of the beast, and we are all susceptible to doing this, its the humanoid in us. I read almost daily how the NTSB concludes what the pilot did wrong thus causing him to loose control and eat the big salami . Sorry folks, we continue to do so, Why?? That’s the part that needs fixing !!!
I will continue to talk about safety and use relevant crash references in the General Aviation News in my Club’s Newsletter – anything to help members and new students to master their skills. Better to learn from others mistakes than your own. As long as it’s relevant, they want to hear about it.
Excellent alternative way to look at the broad spectrum of issues surrounding the general word ‘safety.’
I consider myself a safe pilot … been doing it for nearly half a century. I always think about safety prior to every flight. MY way of dealing with it is knowing my own limitations and that of my older VFR GA airplane AND always applying a litmus test of real world issues prior to every flight. That said — and agreeing with you — I get tired of opening up magazine articles, online blogs and FAA emails harping about safety. Safety this and safety that. The recent NTSB re-emphasis on LOC is an example.
How many times do those people have to keep talking about it? You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink it. More specifically, I think that the safety groups within the FAA and NTSB have a parochial interest in safety to justify their jobs. At some point, they’ve bored everyone with it.
Anyone who has ever studied physics knows that there is no such thing as 100% efficiency in any physical system. Likewise, aviation safety will NEVER get to zero unless they ground everyone. Sometimes, I think that’s what the FAA is up to. There’s always room for improvement based upon education as new issues crop up or as complacency sets in but — at some point — give it a rest.
It’s much akin to yelling ‘fire’ in a theatre or practicing fire drills. At some point, the participants learn to mentally disregard the warnings. THAT in itself is a problem. Are ya listening FAA and NTSB?
Excellent commentary, Thomas. Well said.
It’s just human nature, drive through a stop sign because we’re in a rush. Fly an airplane that’s not up to snuff or in marginal weather because we have to be there. Who hasn’t done it, everyone’s view of safety is different. As a long time flight instructor and former DPE I’ve seen it all, the one hour airplane preflight, the kick the tires and light the fires preflight. And there’s the 4 page checklist just to start the airplane, forget about the 5 page checklist to do a run up. And there’s the guy that does all from memory.
Someone once asked me how long should a good airplane preflight take, I told him it depends on the outside temperature. It was a dumb answer to a dumb question.
I once met a brand-new pilot and his family at a fly-in lunch spot. We traded emails. When he departed, he took an intersection departure from the short, single runway strip. I emailed, cautioning that with his family in the plane, it would have been safer to use the full-length. Never heard from him again.
Good Grief !!!
I like this idea. A lot.
For some reason your idea reminds me of the sports philosophy often attributed to the Japanese, where mastery of the sport is seen as a partly spiritual thing, a process worth doing in itself, where one can take pride in each improvement, regardless of the level of skill.