Irrational Pilots

[esp803]

After reading through some of the accidents and incidents revolving around PDM I decided to dig up a paper I wrote 2 years ago for a psychology course and post it here. I do not want this thread to turn into a company/pilot bashing thread. If it does I will ask the mods to remove it. These were just my findings, through what I have observed in the industry and through a series of interviews I conducted in 2011. All references have been removed or censored. I know when I was at Selkirk College a lot of training was put towards CRM and PDM and I'm not sure how many mum and pop flight schools do that. Please read this, especially the 200hr wonders, and don't do what this paper is about. I apologize for the formatting the paper is saved as a pdf, I tried to fix as much of it as possible.

The Irrational Pilot.

Thus far in my relatively short aviation career I have found a tendency for pilots to commit unnecessary high risk acts with no tangible personal benefit. This behavior is not only illogical, in many cases it is quite dangerous. I will be focusing on two acts in particular: flying over the maximum certified takeoff weight of an aircraft and descending lower then published minimums on instrument approaches. Through this paper I intend to exam the psychological reasons why many pilots opt to push the envelope of what is permissible without personal benefit. I intend to show that through a series of small mental influences a perfectly logical and even experienced pilot can make completely irrational and dangerous decisions.

Case A: Flying above MCTOW

Pilot AB is working for company XYZ. He is paid two ways. He receives a daily rate when he works which is barely enough to afford basic needs. He is also paid for every mile flown, regardless of the outcome of the flight.

Data
Aircraft MCTOW: 3600lbs
Basic Empty Operating Weight: 2400lbs
Fuel required: 400lbs
Freight: 1200bs

Many pilots in the scenario above will load the extra 400lbs of freight on the aircraft despite being over the MCTOW of the aircraft. In this situation the aircraft is no longer legal to fly, and the pilot will make less money then if he were to do two trips. This act is risky and actually leads to a financial loss. I have found that initially there is no tendency to fly and aircraft over weight. After a newly minted commercial pilot joins a company they tend to act in a very logical and legal way. Aircraft will be loaded appropriately and the pilot learns what his aircraft is capable of doing in normal circumstances. Commonly the first time a pilot operates an aircraft over weight is to carry “granny gas”. This is fuel that is not logged in the weight calculation but provides for a higher safety margin on longer flights. Most new pilots feel safer flying slightly over weight but with an abundance of fuel. There is some logic in this thinking in that the aircraft will flu slightly overweight but it will not fly without fuel. This shows a want for self preservation, the chance of crashing due to fuel starvation on long trips is significantly higher then crashing due to a slight over loading. Unfortunately the concept of “granny gas” has become an industry standard, particularly for operations north of the 60th parallel. After conduction many long range trips with “granny gas” on board, the pilot eventually will consider this normal operation and not consider this to be a foolish act.

Now we have a pilot that is comfortable flying overweight, but only if it is for the purpose of survival. He loads his aircraft normally then adds fuel but does not count it in his calculations. At this stage he is taking a risk (overweight flying) with a neutral outcome (financial compensation is the same). At this point I would say that the pilot is acting in the interest of self preservation and despite being foolish it is a logical choice.

Eventually the situation arises where a customer has slightly too much freight for the aircraft on a short trip. Most professionals take pride in their work and subconsciously want to please their customers. Pilots are no different, so when the customer shows up with an extra 100lbs of freight the pilot subconsciously wants to please him/her. This feeling of wanting to please the customer, combined with the fact that the pilot had already operated the aircraft overweight leads to him opting to take the extra 100lbs. The pilot will think to himself: “I know I have enough gas, and I have flown this heavy before, yes I can do this”. Although this seems similar to the first case of flying overweight, there is one very important difference. The pilot is now flying overweight not for self preservation but to please the customer.

This self discovery of flying overweight can be greatly accelerated by the influence of obedience and conformity. Conformity can set in when a pilot joins a new company and all the current pilots of the new company already fly overweight. The social pressure from the group may make the pilot fly over weight. This is often compounded with orders from management to fly overloaded. As shown by
Milgram, over 50% of participants will exceed their comfort level if told to do so by a person in a position of authority. Although the pilot knows it is wrong to fly overloaded and their employment can not be terminated for saying no, they still follow their orders.

A final contributing influence to pilots flying overloaded is that they perceive that since nothing bad has happened up to this point, nothing bad will happen after this point. This is particularly true of young and new pilots who have not had enough experience to be scared in the cockpit. This is a dangerous combination that often leads to a god complex like state. The pilot consistently starts
exceeding what the aircraft is capable of doing with less regard for safety. The pilot starts to progressively fly more and more overloaded. This trend continues until an incident occurs to scare the pilot back to reality. This incident can be as small as a near miss to as large as a fatal accident.

[Citation has been removed] [A personal account of a near crash from overloading an aircraft. The pilot nearly did not get airborne and could not climb. He “scared himself shitless”]

After the incident above the pilot continued to fly overgross but to a much lesser degree. He has stated that he never wants to have that sinking feeling of doom again. He reverted back to the state of normally flying with "granny gas" and slightly overloaded. I have found that typically pilots with between 1000 and 1500 hours of flight experience fall into this "I'm untouchable" state. Pilots with less then this flying time are not comfortable enough to break the laws, and pilots with more then that have generally already given themselves a near death experience.

Case B: Exceeding Weather Minimums

During an instrument approach into an airport there are published minimums which you are allowed to descend to. After you descend to this altitude one of two things should occur, either you will see the airport and continue to descend to land or you see nothing and conduct a missed approach and fly to a predetermined alternate airport.


[For the next section I used Whitehorse and Burwash for the examples because they are home for me and I happened to have the approach plates in front of me. Burwash happened to be a good example of this scenario]

I will look at a flight from Whitehorse to Burwash. Weather in Whitehorse is clear blue skies with excellent visibility. Weather in Burwash is an overcast ceiling at 2000'. Published instrument minimums at burwash are 2253'. Generally when the weather is this close to minimums it is worth trying the flight as the weather may change over the duration of the flight. Much like flying overweight there is sometimes a real or imaginary pressure put on by passenger to land at destination. This pressure can be enough to make a pilot break minimums in an effort to please the passengers.

[Citation has been removed] [Regarding the subconscious desire to please passengers and the negative psychological effects of upset passengers through everything from comments to simple mannerism]

Here we have a imaginary gain for the pilot. The happiness of the customers creates the feeling of a job well done despite having done a very dangerous act. Happy reactions from the passengers can act as a drug, and becomes very desirable and in some cases desirable enough to break laws to attain it. Unlike flying overweight, busting minimums tends to happen with much more experienced flight crews. The more experienced flight crew with previous knowledge of the area is more likely to descend below minimums because they know it is safe. In the Burwash example an experienced pilot will look at the approach plate and know that he is descending over the lake. The lakes altitude is about 2600' ASL the approach limit is 4900' ASL. He will come to the conclusion that if he is on course an extra few hundred feet below minimums is acceptable as he still has two thousand feet before terrain. He also thinks that should anything go wrong a slight right turn will line him up with the valley so there really is very little risk. This is similar thinking to the overweight flying where he has done this many times without incident so doing it again is not a problem, and descending even more shouldn't be an issue. The problem lies where the altimeter setting is very different then predicted or something is entered wrong in the navigation system. If anything is slightly off from perfect the assumed 2000' safety buffer can quickly be reduced to nothing. This attitude of "I've done it before, I can do it again" has lead to numerous fatal accidents due to CFIT (Controlled flight into terrain).

In the aviation industry there is perceived pressure that has coined the name "get-home-itis". This is the crews desire to get home at the end of the day. Most people would rather spend their evenings at home, in their city with their wife. Most people do not like spending then the night huddled in their airplane in a reserve in the middle of nowhere. This can cause a desire to get home no matter what the cost. This effect is similar to the perceived pressure by passengers but differs because it is self induced. The other difference is this effect can be subconscious. Rarely is a pilot actively thinking that he just wants to get home, but at the back of his mind he knows that he would rather be at home that night. This symptom was one of the primary causes of the largest aviation accident in the history of manned flight. The desire to leave Tenerife by a senior KLM captain caused him to start his takeoff prior to receiving a take off clearance. The resulting collision killed 583 people.

Overall we can see that there are two major groups of mental influences that cause pilots to break the laws. The first is real or imaginary pressures put on the pilot by both outside and inside sources. This unfortunately is and inevitable occurrence in the industry. As with the case of KLM flight 4805 we can see that even the most senior of pilots are susceptible to seemingly minor pressures which can create a very dangerous situation. It seems that even with continuous conscious actions to subdue these pressure they still cause pilots to act in illogical ways.

The second major cause is the creation of a god complex through progressively pushing the boundaries of what is acceptable with no consequences. The only cure for this that I have seen is a major event that makes the pilot see his mortality. Most of the time this comes with a near miss at an early stage of their career, occasionally it comes in the form of a fatal accident. Despite there being no real gain for the pilot in busting minimums or flying over weight pilots continue to do so with little regard for the risk involved. This problem will persist until pilots universally decided that the risks are not worth it, unfortunately as I have shown it almost always takes a severe incident for their thinking to change.

[pdw]

opting to take the extra 100lbs

1 lb 'over' is illegal !

Speaking of irrational behavior in this regard:
I've always wondered about how easy it can be to enter into the "overweight" situation when not carefull ... lets say for example even navigating unexpected into some icing where the AC manufacturer stated '1000lbs lighter than MTOW' for light icing. (Here "rational" would be to maintain any maximum loading to be a lb or more below MTOW on any non-icing days and then to be prepared to conform to '1000llbs less' when required. Easier said than done ?)

A very thought-provoking article when putting it in terms of rational vs irrational behavior.

[Son_of_dad]

A very well written article...

I have one additional comment - If anyone has ever flown in northern manitoba/ontario in a light twin from reserve to reserve, using standard weights, I can almost guarantee you have been overweight at one point or another

[Colonel Sanders]

If memory serves, TC used to routinely issue ferry
permits for overwater flights at 10% over max
gross. The FAA would allow 30% over max gross.

[Colonel Sanders]

I might also draw your attention to FAR part 91.323,
where simply by being in Alaska, you are legally
permitted to fly 15% over max gross:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c= ... .10.4.7.12

§ 91.323 Increased maximum certificated weights for certain airplanes operated in Alaska.

(a) Notwithstanding any other provision of the Federal Aviation Regulations, the Administrator will approve, as provided in this section, an increase in the maximum certificated weight of an airplane type certificated under Aeronautics Bulletin No. 7-A of the U.S. Department of Commerce dated January 1, 1931, as amended, or under the normal category of part 4a of the former Civil Air Regulations (14 CFR part 4a, 1964 ed.) if that airplane is operated in the State of Alaska by—

(1) A certificate holder conducting operations under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter; or

(2) The U.S. Department of Interior in conducting its game and fish law enforcement activities or its management, fire detection, and fire suppression activities concerning public lands.

(b) The maximum certificated weight approved under this section may not exceed—

(1) 12,500 pounds;

(2) 115 percent of the maximum weight listed in the FAA aircraft specifications;

(3) The weight at which the airplane meets the positive maneuvering load factor requirement for the normal category specified in § 23.337 of this chapter; or

(4) The weight at which the airplane meets the climb performance requirements under which it was type certificated.

(c) In determining the maximum certificated weight, the Administrator considers the structural soundness of the airplane and the terrain to be traversed.

(d) The maximum certificated weight determined under this section is added to the airplane's operation limitations and is identified as the maximum weight authorized for operations within the State of Alaska.

[CPLMike89]

Very well written, thanks for sharing.

[esp803]

Colonel,

That's quite interesting about Alaska, I always knew they had some funky air laws next door, I just didn't know what they were. I will tell you that the particular incident was more then 30% over. Even with the pass on the legal aspect with a special flight permit, you most consider environmental conditions around the effects of being so much over. A DHC6 comes to mind. I'm not sure the numbers specifically (maybe someone from Borek could chime in), but on a ferry where they are over weight, they would never depart from an 800' strip.

There are always exceptions to the rules, It was a large enough topic as it was and I already had to cut substantial chunks out to keep it within the papers length requirements without adding exceptions. At any rate I was trying to concentrate on the cases where you have zero quantitative gain at added risk.

E

[pdw]

I might also draw your attention to FAR part 91.323,
where simply by being in Alaska, you are legally
permitted to fly 15% over max gross:

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c= ... .10.4.7.12

§ 91.323 Increased maximum certificated weights for certain airplanes operated in Alaska. .....

.....(d) The maximum certificated weight determined under this section is added to the airplane's operation limitations and is identified as the maximum weight authorized for operations within the State of Alaska.

If such MTOW increase applies to your aircraft it becomes the new max weight by by the AK gov't alone. The manufacturer max weight won't change ... say in their defense in any lawsuits involving an accident where a pilot is using that (legalized) 'extra weight-space' in his/her W&B calculations.

Here you phone in for the permit that validates approved excess weight for a ferry departure. So each trip is a one time deal, ... and apparently they do ask questions (enroute WX, terrain, routing ...).

[182-SS]

1978 Cessna 182 Q gross weight 2950, want a legal gross weight of 3100lbs? buy a piece of paper.

The point is that there is more variables than this essay touches on.

I agree with him, rational choices are Key, but to be fair many machines have been flying for decades overweight with no incidents whatsoever, or even close calls.

[CpnCrunch]

It kind of makes sense for Alaska if you think about it. The manufacturer's gross weight assumes you'll sometimes be flying at a high density altitude, but in Alaska I assume the airports are mostly sea-level and the weather never gets particularly hot. As long as the airframe can handle it, and you don't do anything stupid, it seems reasonable. And in terms of "doing something stupid", I imagine the average pilot in Alaska knows more about how their plane handles than the average pilot elsewhere (thinking of those Cirrus accidents being discussed in another thread).

[shimmydampner]

^
Uh....what?

[CpnCrunch]

^
Uh....what?

I thought it was pretty self-explanatory. Do we need to have a 10-page discussion about the factors that go into determining the manufacturer's gross weight?

[shimmydampner]

Actually, that was the least puzzling portion of your post.

[crazy_aviator]

I have an aircraft that is in the "prototype" series of serial numbers. IF i could put it into the homebuilt category,it would receive a 300 lb increase in gross weight via calculations. The production models , which are identical in construction ( for structural and wing loading etc purposes) but have an increase of 25 to 55 HP, have at least a gross weight increase of 400 pounds. the gross weight limitation in this case is SIMPLY a paperwork issue , it has nothing to do with reality. I could fly all day long (im not saying i will) at 300 over gross and the plane will happily and safely fly along. Gross weight in ANY aircraft is often an arbitrary figure arrived at by many reasons , fortunately, most are arrived at, giving great consideration to certifying rerquirements.

[trey kule]

I assume the airports are mostly sea-level and the weather never gets particularly hot.

Southern Alaska gets hot in the summer..Just as hot as southern Canada. And there are more than a few airstrips located up in the mountainous elevations. Besides the fact, that even the coastal sea level type airports are usually pretty close to some very high terrain.

I think some people, myself included, were thrown off by the error in your assumptions..No need for a 10 page discussion.

As to the OP. Nicely written. It is to bad that rather than discussing the psychological factors that allow people to rationalize overloading the thread evolved into a discussion about certified weight exceptions.. The mind works in strange ways...A good book for anyone interested in this is "Thinking fast and slow" For the CRM people, a definite must read, although I think they might take some exception with some of the technical issues in your OP..sample size, etc...no biggie as you got the point across...or at least tried to.

[esp803]

Now keep in mind the paper was written for people not in the field of aviation. To be honest I'm a little shocked at the amount of responses justifying overweight flying, mind you I think that these two statements emphasize at least some of my points.

the average pilot in Alaska knows more about how their plane handles than the average pilot elsewhere

to be fair many machines have been flying for decades overweight with no incidents whatsoever, or even close calls.

As to the OP. Nicely written. It is to bad that rather than discussing the psychological factors that allow people to rationalize overloading the thread evolved into a discussion about certified weight exceptions.. The mind works in strange ways...A good book for anyone interested in this is "Thinking fast and slow" For the CRM people, a definite must read, although I think they might take some exception with some of the technical issues in your OP..sample size, etc...no biggie as you got the point across...or at least tried to.

Thank you, I was hoping for more discussion on the psychology of poor PDM as opposed to the technical aspects of flying overgross. The sample size (interviews) was 9 pilots throughout Canada, and 1 in Africa. Believe it or not, it's hard to find people willing to be recorded about doing illegal things. If I was trying to publish the results/findings, I would have conducted the study much differently. This is mainly my observations and the observations of the 10 people I interviewed summarized for a non-pilot professor. I will be checking out that book when I get back to the great white north.

As for further discussion on this, as much as I enjoy you guys coming up with exceptions to everything I wrote, it would be nice if people could contribute other factors which influence PDM towards risky acts so that they can be known and avoided, Thank you

E

[Colonel Sanders]

PDM towards risky acts

This is such a ridiculously ivory tower statement,
it's hard to know where to begin.

It is quite possible to crash while you are obeying
every single one of the tens of thousands of regulations
governing aviation. This is a historical fact, proven
daily.

Thus we therefore know that even obeying all of
the tens of thousands of regulations governing
aviation, is a "risky act".

Of course, no one knows what the tens of thousands
of regulations even are, but let's not go down that
rathole.

If one wants to get rid of all of the "risky acts" in
aviation, it is obvious that we should all immediately
cease and desist all aviation entirely.

This is silly. So is this thread.

As the decades go by, the regulator, in knee-jerk
response to various politically visible accidents, layers
on yet more regulations that no one can comprehend,
like a child hammering at a nail with a crescent wrench
because it's the only tool he has.

If you think safety is guaranteed by a pile of paper
somewhere, with ink printed on it and glued on one
side, well, all I can say is that you have a lot to learn
about aviation.

Safety comes from the knowledge of how to apply the
laws of physics.

I am horrified that people don't know the difference
between politics (the generation of paper) and physics
(how the world works) but I guess that's just an age thing.

I don't like Justin Beiber or Trudeau, either.

[Sidebar]

Thank you, I was hoping for more discussion on the psychology of poor PDM as opposed to the technical aspects of flying overgross.

Flying over gross is only one issue. Chances are those who do it are also disregarding other regs: weather limits, duty/rest limits, minimum altitudes, etc.

[esp803]

Colonel,

With all due respect, I think you missed the points I was trying to make. This paper was not meant to be about following the law, it was about rational people making very illogical decisions (in this case my definition of illogical is a decision made with added consequences with no tangible personal gain). I might be in the minority when I say I enjoy looking at the psychology behind accidents or potential accidents.

As for risky acts, I was hoping some common sense would be available here. EVERYTHING in life is a calculated risk. And you may not believe this but I have a pretty good grasp on physics but it takes more than an understanding of physics to fly safely. You are fully entitled to think this thread is silly, and since that is the case, I'm asking you to please stop responding to it.

E

[Colonel Sanders]

takes more than an understanding of physics to fly safely

Really?

You youngsters lack perspective, and are unaware
that there are in fact two worlds:

The political/paper world, and the physical world.

They are often loosely coupled. If you wait a while,
or cross some invisible, unmarked line on the ground,
you will encounter a completely different political/paper
world.

However, the physical world is unchanging.

As a pilot, you have to recognize that there are
in fact two worlds: paper and physical which
often have very little to do with each other.

You certainly have to keep them both happy,
but not understanding the difference between
the two is an awfully good way for an inexperienced
pilot to get hurt.

I have tried to educate you about the capriciousness
of the political/paper world with respect to your
example of legal max gross weight with respect
to ferry permits and Alaska, but I see that message
didn't get through.

Your position that physics is unimportant to safety
with respect to maximum gross weight is bizarre
beyond belief.