Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Risk compensation

Probably everybody has a different feeling for that. To me the constant thinking about the risks, is stressful. At least until I am actually airborn. But when I prepare a longer IFR flight, especially with the family, I tend to check the weather too often and to worry about things that later always turn out “no big deal”. Like flying to France VFR; When you plan it you see no chance to actually understand the airspace structure… approaching the border FIS tells you what to do and it’s most times a “piece of caske” … (but I fly to France IFR only lately, which is much easier).

LFHNflightstudent wrote:

Is it a dumb thing to say that managing the risk is at least part of the fun of GA flying?

No, I don’t think so. That’s a very different thing from saying that you enjoy the risks.

When we’re babies we learn to avoid crawling over precipices. When we’re slightly older we learn to look before crossing the road – a slightly more abstract form of danger. Flying involves a much more intellectual form of risk management where you’re thinking further ahead about more abstract threats. It’s intellectually satisfying – a safe flight involves consideration of how much fuel to put in, which way the fronts are moving, and a little knowledge of the fatigue properties of aluminium. I think there are relatively few pursuits that are so broad in their scope or that have such high stakes. We tend to get good at things that we enjoy, and if you find that risk management is stimulating I can’t help but think that it should make you a better pilot.

I think that holding real responsibility is good for a person – it’s been interesting to see how my medical school colleagues changed when they graduated and started work. I’m having trouble expressing what it is that changes – something to do with an underlying seriousness and focus. It doesn’t mean you can’t crack a joke, but somehow the frivolity evaporates. I see it in other people too – often in pilots, and in the military. I remember chatting to a homeless chap in the park who’d been a soldier – he had it too. Sometimes you meet people in these walks of life who just don’t seem to get it – whatever ‘it’ is – and to me this is always a worrying sign. Managing risk by denial is a common symptom – people who follow the protocols and pass the tests, but who don’t seem to have the imagination to truly conceive that they could end up in a fireball, or perhaps the honesty with themselves to admit that it could happen.

I suppose the single unambiguous lesson from the data is that some people have considerably fewer accidents than others. I’d agree that it’s hard to tease out exactly what it is that makes the difference, but the implication is that the risks are under our control. Also, the ‘answer’ might not be as helpful as we might wish, but that doesn’t mean it was silly to ask the question – if the findings had been different, we might have been able to draw more useful conclusions from them.

Last Edited by kwlf at 06 Jun 10:31

Silvaire wrote:

What is termed ‘risk compensation’ here might in less grandiose terms be called flying within your limits.

Peter wrote:

It is really obvious that some people are more likely to get killed than others. Every pilot knows somebody who they would not fly with…

We all know these people. You just don’t feel good sitting besides them, because you sense something’s not right, and that something can mean a lot of things, ranging from the driver being frequently too fast, or to being too slow, too unsecure or too overstretched by driving, biking, or flying, or whatever they do. Funny thing is, this feeling doesn’t go away, even after long hours.

Human nature is to stretch or go beyond limits. Caution, respect and fear, on the other hand, are hallmarks of intelligence, imagination and caution.
And that’s what the survivors in a population have: the constant risk assessment of anything they do. They don’t get oblivious, they don’t loose their respect, they don’t get sloppy. And for those who are tempted to get sloppy, there are procedures, policies, laws, regulations, you name it, to force them into alertness.

In my opinion, most traffic / accident statistics don’t get to the gist of it. They take the statistical main population and spread a blanket of generalistic numbers over it, while completely forgetting about human psychology, behaviour and nature. I am very sure even most of the motorbike statistics are dead wrong. There are subgroups who account for the majority of accidents, but these subgroups don’t have age, driving hours, profession or any such factor in common. They have psychological profiles in common, which are not recorded.

The same applies to pilots. As fun to read this ‘killing zone’ book is or as hilarious the post about ‘micromorts’ above was, what we should really ask ourselves is:
How succeptible are we to sloppiness and complacency ? And if yes, what can we do to overcome that ? That may be a standard operating procedure we stick to, even when we are not part of an organization who forces us to comply with it.

IMO it doesn’t matter, how many hours we fly, how old we are, what plane we have, or whether we are IR rated. The higher instrument accident rate for example, to me, is just a sign of complacency. ’I’m instrument rated, nothing can happen to me, I’m superior, I can survive clouds, so let’s go’. Bang.

Safe landings !
EDLN, Germany

I too think there is something fundamentally wrong with these stats.

In GA, risk management is a very attractive challenge which makes flying much more interesting than it would be otherwise. This factor gets stronger as you move up in capability e.g. fly IFR, etc. Most but not all of it is managing weather versus aircraft capability.

And I don’t think it can be condensed into numbers. Well, I don’t doubt numbers can be collected and plotted but the key Q is: can a useful conclusion can be drawn from them? It is really obvious that some people are more likely to get killed than others. Every pilot knows somebody who they would not fly with… And aviation is not directly comparable with driving because nearly all the risk is under your own control (the exceptions are somebody hitting you, and poor maintenance but an owner can do a lot to manage that one).

It seems obvious that a massive amount of risk compensation takes place at the low-hours end of GA, simply due to a lack of confidence for doing significant trips in less than CAVOK conditions. And higher-up in GA the extent of it is going to be related to various other factors, including how much effort the pilot invests in getting clued-up.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

EuroFlyer wrote:

I know bikers who didn’t last 3 months after their license before they had an accident. And I know some who are driving bikes since 30 years without any incident. Go to a region with a lot of curvy roads and you know what I mean.

As per my earlier post, you ‘know’ one motorcyclist who has never been injured (yet!) on a motorcycle after 43 years and hundreds of thousands of miles/kilometers, on most weekends and mostly on curvy roads, neither going slowly nor (apparently) too fast without brain engaged to task. My friends are riding in the Alps now as I write, I have to wait until later this year. Boo, hiss.

Yes, I think the lessons from risk management in any activity can be transferred at least to some degree to aviation, although you need avoid thinking that because you’re skilled at one thing, you’re automatically skilled at another. That doesn’t work, and that mistake has killed a lot of pilots and motorcyclists as well actually.

EuroFlyer wrote:

Complacency, carelessness, and a general daring and or sloppy attitude towards life is extremely important and none of those are ever measured by these wonderful statistics.

I agree about the limitations of statistics but would add for what it’s worth and in my experience ‘generally daring or sloppy’ does not completely capture the core issue. The core issue is inability or unwillingness to apply your mind to the task, and unwillingness to hear your fear instinct, even while not being controlled by it. Just my opinion.

What is termed ‘risk compensation’ here might in less grandiose terms be called flying within your limits. You’d hope that no training would be so block headed as to ignore that ongoing experience and working up to bigger things on your own, while remaining current enough to do so, is the natural and correct way of learning once you have the ‘license to learn’ in hand, and even before. And if you can’t fly as much and have to take baby steps who cares, any progress is good.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 06 Jun 02:08

I’m not convinced by anything so far. You compare risk of flying with rhe risk of motorbike riding… Hmm.

I know bikers who didn’t last 3 months after their license before they had an accident. And I know some who are driving bikes since 30 years without any incident. Go to a region with a lot of curvy roads and you know what I mean. You got the guys who overtake everywhere, no matter if they see the curve or oncoming traffic, and you got those who just drive normally. Yet, the overall statistics don’t take that into account.

Why is that ? Because they approach what they do in different ways. There are risk takers, who challenge their luck every time they fly. And others, who try to minimise any risk as much as possible, apply their intelligence and prudence and use their brain more than the others.

I don’t doubt the statistics here are bad, mind you. I just think that all these models just look at exogenic factors, treating all pilots as equal and almost never consider the personal risk attitude and behaviour of the biker / the pilot.

Complacency, carelessness, and a general daring and or sloppy attitude towards life is extremely important and none of those are ever measured by these wonderful statistics.

Last Edited by EuroFlyer at 05 Jun 23:12
Safe landings !
EDLN, Germany

Silvaire wrote:

…humans are made that way…

Luckily all 7 billions humans are different. We are not made the same way. To each his own! (as the Romans used to say)

EDDS - Stuttgart

LFHNflightstudent wrote:

Is it a dumb thing to say that managing the risk is at least part of the fun of GA flying?

Managing personal risk of various kinds, physical, financial and including risks in aviation is most of my enjoyment in life and it’s how you succeed where others can’t or don’t.

Of course it makes sense, humans are made that way – whether they for some reason dislike admitting it, or not.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 05 Jun 20:38

My question was about managing the risk, not taking unnecessary risks. We all fly (as safely as possible I hope) and are conscious of the risks that implies. Yet we still do and enjoy it. For me at least managing those risks so they are minimal is part of the fun. Does that make more sense?

LFHN - Bellegarde - Vouvray France

JasonC wrote:

Given we are talking the risk of death or serious injury, yes it is.

Absolutely. Ever seen someone with real bad injuries or burns? No “fun” of whatever kind and especially no recreational activity is worth that. Therefore we (I at least) try to keep the risk at the lowest possible level.

EDDS - Stuttgart
47 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top