Accidents.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

When a pilot has an accident in Canada who determines if it was pilot error?

[cory_trevor]

The pilot.

[GyvAir]

Initially? The AvCanada peanut gallery.

[AuxBatOn]

TSB determines the cause and contributing factors.

[Big Pistons Forever]

"Pilot Error" is no longer a term used in accident investigation

[Chuck Ellsworth]

"Pilot Error" is no longer a term used in accident investigation

O.K., so what term is now in use if the accident was caused by pilot error?

[whiteguy]

CBC, CNN....

[Strega]

I wonder if it was the weathers fault ac crashed in halifax?

[trampbike]

"Pilot Error" is no longer a term used in accident investigation

O.K., so what term is now in use if the accident was caused by pilot error?

Tons of different terms, for tons of different situations.
Saying it simply was "pilot error" was not very useful, as pretty much all accidents involve pilot errors.

What's your point?

[Chuck Ellsworth]

What's your point?

Well my point is looking at it from the viewpoint of an owner of a commercial air service lets suppose we have the following problem.

Two pilots flying a two crew airplane approved as two crew by TC land with the gear up.

Who makes the decision as to who was responsible for the accident?

If it is not pilot error what is it, a learning experience?

[CpnCrunch]

Well my point is looking at it from the viewpoint of an owner of a commercial air service lets suppose we have the following problem.

Two pilots flying a two crew airplane approved as two crew by TC land with the gear up.

Who makes the decision as to who was responsible for the accident?

If it is not pilot error what is it, a learning experience?

Well, my first question would be: what are the SOPs, and did the pilots follow them?

[Gorgons]

Well I would think if it was a two crew aircraft with SOP's and you geared one up after following the SOP to the letter you have a really flawed SOP.

[Big Pistons Forever]

If it is not pilot error what is it, a learning experience?

Since you are, as usual, trolling for a rise how about this.

It is absolutely a learning experience........for the operator.

Pay peanuts, use the bond to make money off your employees, constantly verbally abuse the staff, set terrible schedules........and you get minimum experience, bottom of the barrel candidates who do stupid stuff

[trampbike]

If it is not pilot error what is it, a learning experience?

It is indeed pilot error... for the pilots involved. For everyone else, why not make it a learning experience?

[180]

2 crew flight decks operate as a team. It would be both of their faults, not just one or the other. I think the guys would already know they F'ed up, does calling it pilot error really change anything? A hull insurance claim is a hull insurance claim. And if somebody was hurt, well that's the liability insurance. WCB protects the pilots from being sued if someone is hurt or worse, unless it was deemed gross negligence. Don't quote me on all of this, my memory is getting a little foggy with age, but I seem to recall this is how it plays out.

[CID]

It depends on the context. Pilot error is determined by the TSB officially from an airworthiness perspective, from the operator for his/her purposes and by the insurance companies for their purposes. And of course the media and the AvCanada peanut gallery for their purposes.

The term "pilot error" is generally not used in TSB reports because it's more of a summary statement. The TSB reports tend to use much more specific language. Like " the pilot failed to maintain control" or "the pilot willfully and intentionally steered the aircraft into the mountain".

The term is however used by the TSB when they classify different types of causes in general terms.

"Pilot error" is somewhat broad. Organizational or cultural break-downs can result in a pilot-error related accident. So can a breakdown in CRM which is a team failure.

[habs.fan]

For a gear-up landing it will likely come out as "failure to adhere to company SOPs during the approach phase," which is exactly what it is. Why they didn't adhere to the SOPs will likely be due to insufficient recurrent training, poor oversight of training or failure to adhere to the company's training program. At the end of the day, the company will be faced with unreasonable amounts of paperwork that will leave the chief pilot and ops manager scratching their heads and wondering why they ever got in to this stupid business.

[GARRETT]

For a gear-up landing it will likely come out as "failure to adhere to company SOPs during the approach phase," which is exactly what it is. Why they didn't adhere to the SOPs will likely be due to insufficient recurrent training, poor oversight of training or failure to adhere to the company's training program. At the end of the day, the company will be faced with unreasonable amounts of paperwork that will leave the chief pilot and ops manager scratching their heads and wondering why they ever got in to this stupid business.

Great post! I 100% agree!

[armchair]

Before the Dubin's, Moshansky's, Shappell's, Reason's and Dekker's of this world turned the investigation causal factors terminology around, in a mix of human factors vs political correctness vs modernism vs liability, accident cause factors involving pilot error would be easier to nail, and would usually read the old military report way: 1. Personnel - pilot - technique: pilot was unable to handle the crosswind and let aircraft dip below minima blah blah 2. Personnel - Pilot - Judgment: pilot decided to attempt landing in poor visibility after 30 minutes of holding and did not want to divert to alternate. 3. Personnel - - Pilot - Pressure : Pilot somewhat left him/herself pressured to complete mission due to unknown blah blah. Now the TSB and NTSB have to be a lot more creative in their formulation to blame pilots. But they still do.

[black hole]

How about: distracted flying?

BH