Michael Moore: Do You Want Airline Pilots to Be Working Two Jobs?

Crooks and Liars ^ | Monday Oct 12, 2009 6:00pm | Susie Madrak

[CharlesWayneCT]

And to be honest, my friend the former fighter pilot is one of the smarter people I know, he’s now got a desk job in my field.

[zipper]

Also, while the study SAID 10,000 hours, if you look at the actual data, there was a drop-off in deaths in the 5000-9999 hour window.

However, above 9999 hours, the death rate increased precipitously, and never returned to the 5000-9999 level.

I think old pilot, with more than 19,000 hours, would disagree with your assumptions.

"....I am worried that the airline piloting profession will not be able to continue to attract the best and the brightest. The current experience and skills of our country's professional airline pilots come from investments made years ago, when we were able to attract the ambitious, talented people who now frequently seek professional careers elsewhere. That past investment was an indispensable element in our commercial aviation infrastructure, vital to safe air travel and our country's economy and security. If we do not sufficiently value the airline piloting profession and future pilots are less experienced and less skilled, it logically follows that we will see negative consequences to the flying public and to our country...."

http://blogs.courant.com/travel_columnists_leblanc/2009/02/sullenberger-pay-cuts-driving.html

[Republic of Texas]

It’s Michael Moore, so it must be a lie.

[zipper]

"Also, while the study SAID 10,000 hours, if you look at the actual data, there was a drop-off in deaths in the 5000-9999 hour window.

However, above 9999 hours, the death rate increased precipitously, and never returned to the 5000-9999 level."

-----------------

A totally misleading statement that was NOT in the study [highlighted in bold] that misrepresents what the study you cite ACTUALLY said:

With adjustment for age, pilots who had 5,000–9,999 hours of total flight time at baseline had a 57% lower risk of a crash than their less experienced counterparts (relative risk = 0.43, 95% confidence interval: 0.21, 0.87). The protective effect of flight experience leveled off after total flight time reached 10,000 hours. The lack of an association between pilot age and crash risk may reflect a strong "healthy worker effect" stemming from the rigorous medical standards and periodic physical examinations required for professional pilots.....With adjustment for age, having 5,000 or more hours of total flight time at baseline reduced crash risk by more than 50 percent. The protective effect of flight experience on crash risk appeared to level off after total flight time at baseline reached 10,000 hours..... There is little evidence that the prevalence of pilot error is significantly associated with age in professional pilots... And oh by the way the authors of the study explained the increase on the diagram in relative risk from the 5000-9999 mark to th 10,000-14,999 mark as follows:

The crash rate in general aviation is 4.5 times the rate for commuter air carriers and is about the same as that for air taxis (23). Since information on exposure to flight was unavailable for specific categories of aviation, we were unable to calculate crash rates separately for commuter air carriers and air taxis and for general aviation. It is possible that exposure to general aviation in this study population may increase in the process of aging because of increased leisure time. Given that two out of the three crashes that occurred at age 60–64 years involved general aviation flights, the crash rates for older ages reported in this study may have been somewhat overestimated. Additionally, crash risk in this study was assessed without consideration of the probable causes. Previous studies showed that pilot error is a contributing factor in 71 percent of commuter air carrier and air taxi crashes (33). There is little evidence that the prevalence of pilot error is significantly associated with age in professional pilots (33, 34). A study based on general aviation crashes revealed that older male pilots tend to make fewer errors, particularly poor decisions, than younger male pilots (35).

Also, remember the study you cited only included part 135 pilots who were:

1) holding a Class I medical certificate; 2) being employed by one of the 14 CFR Part 135 airlines identified from the FAA’s list of airline employers; 3) being 45–54 years of age; 4) flying for business or both business and pleasure; 5) listing "pilot" or "commercial pilot" as one’s occupation; 6) having 20 or more hours of flight time in the previous 6 months; and 7) having 500 or more hours of total flight time.

So the group as a whole was more experienced and older than many of the entry-level pilots in the commuter airlines -- the very pilots that are most likely to be paid least, since it is rare for a 45-year old to enter the part 135 'commuter airlines' at all, let alone with only 500 hours by that age.

[zipper]

For better context, splice this into my above post -- they are saying there were some 25 accidents that were off-duty included in the study that biased the data toward older pilot crashes -- they explain that the older pilots are more likely to take up leisure flying, and that type of GA flying has a 4.5 time higher accident rate, generally. Makes sense, since older pilots tend to have more disposable income, more free time, and are more likely to have accumulated wealth.

......Although the target population in this study was commuter air carrier and air taxi pilots, the reported crash rates were based on all crashes experienced by the study subjects before they were censored, including 25 general aviation crashes. It is not uncommon for professional pilots to fly under general aviation regulations for pleasure and recreation while off-duty. The crash rate in general aviation is 4.5 times the rate for commuter air carriers and is about the same as that for air taxis (23)...........

[Wpilot8]

Actually there is going to be a loop-hole in the new ATP rule. Flight students from college or “pilot- mill” flight schools will still be allowed to be hired with less hours than an ATP. This is just a law to make the public feel safe. In reality, schools like Embry- Riddle used their congressmen to their advantage.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I think old pilot, with more than 19,000 hours, would disagree with your assumptions.

I wasn't making any assumptions. I don't have any independent knowledge. I was quoting from, and reporting information from, a specific study, for which I provided a link.

Please feel free to trash the study, but don't blame me for the information in the study.

BTW, If I WERE to speculate about the study, I would suggest that a higher death rate among pilots with more experience could be because the more experienced pilots fly the longer, more dangerous routes, where there is a better chance of death.

Except that I don't think there are any commercial flights that are "known" to be "risky" and "prone to death" -- it seems that if there is any significant risk, like a storm that is known to be in the way, they just cancel the flights. We are not a nation that needlessly risks things.

[zipper]

You still don’t get it.

You misrepresented the study, as I demonstrated with careful analysis.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I had no qualms about your discussion of the study and it’s limitations — that’s what I asked you to do in my other post, which was a response to a different comment where you attributed the study information to me, and I wanted to correct you.

I appreciate that you posted the actual graph showing that, IN THE STUDY, their data said the safest group was those with 5000-9999 hours. That’s what I said in my post, and the graph you posted shows that I posted the facts as presented by the study.

I appreciate your expert analysis of the study and your opinion as to why the raw data of the study wasn’t germaine.

I did notice the study was more about age of pilots, not experience.

I haven’t been able to find any other study online that shows death rate vs. experience. You have implied that this data is known, and that experience reduces the death rate. Could you please post the actual data that shows this to be the case?

Because I tried, but apparently the study I posted was inadequate. You are the expert, so please provide me the data that would be factual so I can see. Thanks.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Let me speak more plainly.

I don’t “believe” that more flight hour experience translates to fewer deaths in a linear fashion, although I am willing to be persuaded by evidence.

When this flight-hours == lower death rate was asserted, I tried to find evidence for or against it, and the only study I found on the net was the one I posted.

You have dismissed the study as useful for the purpose I was trying to use it for.

SO I am asking you to provide a link to a study that WOULD be useful to either prove or disprove the assertion that more flight hours == lower death rate.

In my opinion, there are so few deaths in airplanes that the data will have too much noise in it to make any claims about experience. Since it seems from my cursory study that most plane crashes are catastrophic mechanical failures (which no amount of experience would help), it could well be that the raw data will show that more experienced pilots, flying longer routes and more complicated aircraft, might end up having a HIGHER death rate.

This goes back though to the basic question — how many deaths do the FACTS suggest would be prevented by doubling the minimum hour rule, how much does it cost to double the rule, and is the cost worth it for the number of deaths prevented?

Without actual data, it seems we are all just speculating.

But I can’t imagine, given the number of deaths/passenger mile differences between planes and buses, that the money wouldn’t be better “spent” training bus drivers instead of airline pilots.

[zipper]

I appreciate that you posted the actual graph showing that, IN THE STUDY, their data said the safest group was those with 5000-9999 hours. That’s what I said in my post, and the graph you posted shows that I posted the facts as presented by the study.

I appreciate your expert analysis of the study and your opinion as to why the raw data of the study wasn’t germaine.

It wasn't my opinion. It was the opinion of the authors of the study. The study you misrepresented, as I demonstrated.

[zipper]

You have dismissed the study as useful for the purpose I was trying to use it for.

I didn't dismiss the study at all. In fact it supports the notion that more experienced pilots have lower accident rates. I merely pointed out some limitations with the study, which apparently may have led to your bizarre conclusion:

"However, above 9999 hours, the death rate increased precipitously, and never returned to the 5000-9999 level."

[CharlesWayneCT]

The 2nd quote was a direct observation of the data in the study, which you kindly explained should not be taken as indicative of what is showed because of the limitations of the data.

In the raw data provided, the lowest death rate was when the pilots had between 5000 and 9999 hours of experience; pilots with 9999+ hours of experience actually had a much higher passenger death rate.

I am still looking for a study that proves what some people here are arguing, that flight hours experience correlates with lower death rates by a sufficient amount to make it worth the cost to require higher hours experience.

[zipper]

In the raw data provided, the lowest death rate was when the pilots had between 5000 and 9999 hours of experience; pilots with 9999+ hours of experience actually had a much higher passenger death rate.

Wrong again. Not passenger death rate, pilot death rate. Again, you miss the point that the 27 GA accidents skewed the data, in turn skewing the graph. If the graphed data were based solely on passenger risk, the data would not have been skewed by the 27 off-duty GA accidents.

This is tiresome. Like talking to a wall, only less productive. And to make matters worse, I didn't even bother to address some of your more unconventional ideas.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Technically, it’s crash risk, not pilot or passenger death, so I shouldn’t have said “death rate”, I should have said “crash rate”.

But crashes are what cause deaths, so there should be some correlation between the two.

Passenger “risk” doesn’t come into play at all so far as I can tell; it was a mistake on my part to make the correlation (even though that was the point of looking up crash data, as we were talking about passenger deaths).

So I don’t see how you can suggest that removing the 27 GA accidents would “skew” the data. They are still accidents.

The study was primarily interested in showing that age wasn’t a factor. But the study authors wrote “With adjustment for age, having 5,000 or more hours of total flight time at baseline reduced crash risk by more than 50 percent. The protective effect of flight experience on crash risk appeared to level off after total flight time at baseline reached 10,000 hours.”

My mistake was that I missed the range in the original chart, so I thought the numbers were for “5000” and “10000”, but in fact they were for “5000-9999” and “10000-14999”.

So when I said that 5000 was the cutoff, it was 10,000.

Lastly, what you claimed was the study authors “explanation” of the chart was actually their explanation for the AGE issue, not the experience chart. They didn’t try to explain the chart, just the data’s implication for age-related accidents.

Since they were primarily focused on age, it makes sense they would discuss it. THe chart about hours of flight experience wasn’t directly age-related, although I presume that older pilots may also have more hours of flying (not always of course). “the crash rates for older ages reported”, as you so kindly highlighted earlier.

Anyway, since again you reject the experience chart from this study, do you have ANY study that shows what you are asserting? Or should we just ignore evidence altogher since it seems to be “tiresome” to you to have to talk about actual data?

[zipper]

So I don’t see how you can suggest that removing the 27 GA accidents would “skew” the data. They are still accidents.

You don't get it, and probably never will. Your comprehension of the study has diminished instead of increased.

[CharlesWayneCT]

Unless your argument is that more experienced pilots are flying more GA flights than less experienced pilots, you can’t show how it skews the accident vs experience plot.

The authors didn’t argue that it skewed that plot — they argued that it skewed the AGE comparisons. And you quoted their argument that older pilots might fly more GA.

But neither you nor so far as I can tell the authors directly correlated the age range in question (it was all older pilots) with the hours of flying. It could correlate, but they didn’t care to make the correlation because it wasn’t their argument.

Again, since you find this study useless, show me a study that gives evidence for your argument.

[zipper]

Actually there is going to be a loop-hole in the new ATP rule. Flight students from college or “pilot- mill” flight schools will still be allowed to be hired with less hours than an ATP. This is just a law to make the public feel safe. In reality, schools like Embry- Riddle used their congressmen to their advantage.

Here it is below, from the bill. I does appear there will be some relaxation in the 1500-hour requirement for academic courses. Not just universities, but possibly military, and maybe even correspondence courses.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-3371&version=eh&nid=t0%3Aeh%3A242

11 (d) Credit Toward Flight Hours- The Administrator may allow specific academic training courses, beyond those required under subsection (b)(2), to be credited toward the total flight hours required under subsection (c). The Administrator may allow such credit based on a determination by the Administrator that allowing a pilot to take specific academic training courses will enhance safety more than requiring the pilot to fully comply with the flight hours requirement.