Have accidents decreased since T.C. mandated PPC's?

[Cat Driver]

Reading about all these accidents in the 703/704 sector of aviation I have to wonder if accidents are becoming less now that pilots are basically one or two trick ponies because they are limited to only flying airplanes they have PPC's on?

I may be wrong but I am almost sure there were no more or even less accidents when we could fly as many different airplanes as the chief pilot checked us out on.

One would think that being limited to only one or two different airplanes they would have less accidents, but it sure does not seem to be that way.

[Doc]

Well Cat, lets see. Reaching way back into the memory banks, we have Lockhart's Cat Lake tragedy on or about the 16th of December. Then, we have the Sky North boys sucking the gear up on landing. That was, I think the 24th of December. Today, we have the lads at Superior leaving (or so it appears) the gear up for the landing in Bloodvein MB......going out on a limb here my friend, but no, PPC's have had NO positive effect on aviation safety.
This crap has to STOP!

[AEROBAT]

What was the reasoning behind mandating PPC's?

[Cat Driver]

I have no idea.

It all started about thirty years ago as I recall, first time I was aware of it I offered to help out a guy who operated a Navajo by doing some trips for him as one of his pilots had quit. He said he couldn't let me because there was a new requirement for me to have a PPC.

Seems the PPC has not really made things better as far as accidents goes.

[flyboy]

Well Cat, I can't say if accidents have decreased, because I havn't been flying that long, and all I know is the PPC system.
How was it done before?
I personally don't mind the system, but I like i said it's all I know. I'm currently PPC'd on 3 aircraft, and I can't imagine flying more. I think if they training is done properly it works.

There are a couple of things I have noticed in the last few years that might be contributing to more accidents.

1. Less experienced pilots in the 703/704 operations, combined with high movement in the industry.(untill lately)
When I got my first bush job, I spent 100hrs in line training with a 10000 hour pilot before I was cut loose. These days in the same type of job you will have a 1500 hour pilot with 250 on the aircraft training the new guy for the bare minimum of 50hours. Lots of knowledge and skill no longer gets passed down and a lot has been forgotten in the quick turnovers. Training methods need to change with this as the old one doesn't work.

2. The other thing I have noticed in the young pilots out there, is a lack of professionalism. A lot of the young people out there feel entitled to everything, and that they shouldn't have to work for anything. And get paid lots to do it at the same time. All they seem to care about is how quickly they can jump to AC, and they don't care who they @#$@ on to get there. They do not care about their current job, it' just a means to an end. I have seen so many new pilots out there that know dick about the airplane they are flying. They learnt the min to pass the PPC and that's it. They don't take the time to really read and learn about the aircraft they are operating. This really scares me.

Now not all the young people out there are like this, but they good ones seem to be pretty rare, and possibly I'm a little jaded and negative. But again companies have to change training methods to offset the lack of initiative by some of these new pilots.

This might even be an area where QA or SMS program might be beneficial.

Anyways my .02c
But I am curious, how was it done before the PPC system?

[Double Wasp]

Just a shot in the dark here . but isn't the PPC system in place to line ourselves up with ICAO more than anything.

What is the negative side to this system?

Theoretically the check pilot is the guy who is seeing if these people are up to the standard. The standards required to be acheived might be what is in need of reveiwing not the PPC system itself. A higher standard to pass a check requires a higher standard of training. This goes for both line checks and PPC's.

Just some ideas.

DW

[Doc]

All these guys, landing gear up all over the country, have PPC's.
I rest my case.

[Cat Driver]

Well Cat, I can't say if accidents have decreased, because I havn't been flying that long, and all I know is the PPC system.
How was it done before?

The chief pilot made the decision who flew what and when.

For instance at Austin Airways we had to have one thousand hours as FO before upgrading to captain on the DC3 or the PBY.

I personally don't mind the system, but I like i said it's all I know. I'm currently PPC'd on 3 aircraft, and I can't imagine flying more.

A lot depends on the type of airplanes being flown, for instance the big jets are quite complex and it would be difficult to fly five of six different types on a regular basis. However the smaller airplanes are a lot less complex and therefore it is easier to fly several different types.

I think if they training is done properly it works.

Exactly, and that was the secret to our success before the PPC came into effect...we were trained properly.

I may as well raise the discussion of a pilot flying fixed wing and rotary wing for the same company and randomly switching from one type to the other as needed......

Any comments anyone?

[Flybabe]

I don't mind the PPC system at all, in the sense that the PPC allows for a WEE bit more knowledge about that particular aircraft - a good thing. In my opinion, a great portion of the pilot error accidents falls to decision making. PPCs do nothing to address decision making, outside of the box of training.

I'd like to see the accidents stop as well. I've lost enough friends.

[Doc]

Cat, we used to do annual check rides at Austin. You could do a "ride" on the DC3 one year, and the Hawker the next. Don't remember how the Twin Otter fitted in. The DC3 and Hawker were considered "similar" types.

[Cat Driver]

When examining the issue of flying different airplanes the only real factor to consider is the pilot must " think " about which machine he/she is about to operate and if said pilot is unsure about how said machine operates...don't operate the thing until you understand how it works.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Based on what I have heard from many old timers it would seem that there has not been that much change in the 703 end of the industry. There industry had and continues to have about the same mix of quality, from good operators who properly train their pilots and maintain their airplanes to complete horror shows. One of the reasons the PPC system was introduced was because many companies didn't do any training at all and a PPC ride with an outside observer at least required demonstrating a base level of knowledge and skill which could not be P51'd or faked. Is a PPC ride the best way to ensure that pilots get proper training....probably not, but at least it ensures pilots get some training. Personally I think that the differences in the types of aircraft used in piston 703 operations is overstated and there should be a generic "703" ride for each class of aircraft (ie SE wheels, SE float, ME VFR, and ME IFR). This ride would concentrate on demonstrating the core handling skills and would ideally have a PDM component.

However the bottom line is the PPC is the minimum standard and it is up to the pilot to learn everything he/she can about the aircraft and how to operate it. Sadly I see too many examples where pilots just don't seem to be interested in putting in the effort and have no mechanical curiosity.

There are plenty of bad operators today and to anyone who thinks things were better "in the old days" I have two words for you...... Wappity Airways

[snaproll20]

There is no obvious solution to this matter.
I too remember when PPCs came in. It seemed a little bit bureaucratic, but it did ensure that some kind of formal training was documented. This provided for separation between the serious companies, who actually did what they documented, and those who falsified the records. I too believe it was ICAO standard-driven.
But I agree with "Flybabe's" comments.
I generally compare this to the days when I used to drive. On any given day you would encounter idiots on the road. The only thing was, you had to question whether they were truly idiots, or prone to the odd mistake (like myself). A driving licence is much like a pilot licence in some regards. The driver licence has minimum skill demonstration and is almost like a birthright, followed by no supervision. A pilot not demonstrating pride in obtaining necessary skills generally has more serious consequences than a driver. Driver accidents/incidents also rarely make the newspapers (or the CADORS!) The frequency is accepted as being normal, which is a serious comment on our society.
In short, there are a lot of people running around out there who are at risk. I have seen 10,000 hour pilots running around seeking a place to have an accident (how about the Davis Inlet incident?) Since these people cannot protect themselves from themselves, it falls to good management and good test examiners to supervise and winnow out the chaff.

[Cat Driver]

It seems to be the consensus that not much has changed over the years accident wise.

Despite all the advances in modern aircraft technology pilots are still wrecking them at the same rate as ever.

I have another question.

What exactly do pilots mean when they refer to " The old days. " ?

Is that expression based on the individual pilots exposure to aviation or is there a defined time when " The old days. " ended?

[Sidebar]

Reading about all these accidents in the 703/704 sector of aviation I have to wonder if accidents are becoming less now that pilots are basically one or two trick ponies because they are limited to only flying airplanes they have PPC's on?

I may be wrong but I am almost sure there were no more or even less accidents when we could fly as many different airplanes as the chief pilot checked us out on.

One would think that being limited to only one or two different airplanes they would have less accidents, but it sure does not seem to be that way.

TSB statistics show the air taxi segment has the most accidents and the highest accident rate in Canadian commercial aviation. The air taxi industry segment had 110 accidents in 1997, and 31 in 2006. Accident rates for air taxi are shown as 15.0/100,000 hrs flown in 1997, and 5.0/100K hrs in 2006. See http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/stats/aviation ... sp#table_2.

Earlier TSB information shows 169 air taxi accidents in 1989, with a rate of 16.1/100K hrs. See http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/stats/aviation/1998/a98_2.asp.

It would appear the air taxi segment has become safer over the past 20 years. Question is, why is this so? I'm not sure PPCs have anything to do with it. I think implementation of many of the SATOPS recommendations had a greater effect. Note the drop in the accident numbers between 1997 and 1999 at http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/stats/aviation ... sp#table_2.

See http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/syste ... 8/menu.htm for the 1998 SATOPS final report, and viewtopic.php?t=32235 for an AvCanada discussion thread.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Exactly, and that was the secret to our success before the PPC came into effect...we were trained properly.

The "old days" are what is implied in your pretty unambiguos and declarative statement above. My personal opinion is there is more training occuring now than there was before a PPC was required, but I admit this is based on anicdotal evidence. Is the PPC the best way to ensure that pilots get good training... probably not, but I am convinced that not mandating a practical test of competance on a regular basis will result in even less training for pilots in the 703 sector. I personally do not see how this will improve the accident/incident rate.

[Sidebar]

It seems to be the consensus that not much has changed over the years accident wise.

Despite all the advances in modern aircraft technology pilots are still wrecking them at the same rate as ever.

I disagree. The number of accidents and the accident rate have both decreased. See my earlier post for supporting information.

[Big Pistons Forever]

It seems to be the consensus that not much has changed over the years accident wise.

Despite all the advances in modern aircraft technology pilots are still wrecking them at the same rate as ever.

I disagree. The number of accidents and the accident rate have both decreased. See my earlier post for supporting information.

Many factors have affected the reduction in accident rates (widespread use of GPS, more use of higher performance reliable turbine aircraft, mandated insurance/contrails minimum hour requirements, airport improvements , better weather reporting etc etc ) and therefore ascribing the improvement in accident rates to one factor is difficult. TC did not wake up one day and say "lets make more work for ourselves by introduing PPC's" it was a response to a series of high profile accidents.

[CD]

What exactly do pilots mean when they refer to " The old days. " ?

Is that expression based on the individual pilots exposure to aviation or is there a defined time when " The old days. " ended?

I would suggest that the "old days" might be related to specific dates or events that result in a cultural shift of sorts (for lack of a better term), where there is a definable before and after. Some examples might be:

May 1981
10 March 1989
11 July 1991
10 October 1996
11 September 2001

[Widow]

I disagree. The number of accidents and the accident rate have both decreased. See my earlier post for supporting information.

Before SATOPS, both heli and flight training were included in air taxi stats. Now they are separate. I believe this skews the statistics, and makes it difficult to judge what improvement has actually taken place.

[snoopy]

Also, many "stellar" operators do not claim their accidents/incidents on official records, nor do they claim subsequent repairs in the tech logs. I know of one operator in particular who is famous for this practice which has carried on for many years - from the edge of the "good 'ol days" to modern times.

Part of this stems from the "out of sight, out of mind" philosophy, where the lack of operator scrutiny on the part of Transport Canada, allows people of this mindset to apply their own set of rules to the way they operate and get away with it. Of course they appear safe since they haven't had (m)any accidents - on paper.

Therefore the statistics are further skewed and thus inaccurate.

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[Sidebar]

I agree that the TSB's statistics may not be totally accurate. In fact, if you compare earler TSB stats to later reports, you'll see differences in the same information, likely because of refinement as more information became available.

However, the conclusions stated earlier in this thread are unsubstantiated by anything except anecdotes and personal opinions. I chose to base my comments on something fairly authoritative, flawed as TSB's stats may be.

To make reasonable conclusions, I think empirical data is needed. Anyone have any suggestions where to get it from?

[Widow]

Sorry about that Sidebar, I'll fix that up now ...

Since we're on the subject of stats, I'd like to note that it is also possible that the TSB stats do not regularly include people who are "missing" ... The stats for 2005 only incude my husband from the AQW crash, and do not include the other four people that died that day.

[snoopy]

Unfortunately Transport Canada does not share their statistics, or allow them to be correlated into meaningful data which would then be released via Statistics Canada reports.

The Transportation Safety Board does not investigate all accidents/incidents and not all accidents/incidents are reported. Therefore, I myself am not aware of any available accurate empirical data, and my "speculations" are just put out there to illustrate that information is missing from official data. Since I gave no specifics (nor will I), I accept the statement will be taken as opinion (and rightfully so). There are those who have personal experience with this and other operators, who will know this statement of opinion to be true.

I seem to recall former Supreme Court Justice Virgil Moshansky making a factual statement regarding the inaccuracy of the TSB statistics, which cited an example. If I find the example I will post it.

Cheers,
Kirsten B.

[Sidebar]

Like Flybabe, I also think “PPCs do nothing to address decision making”, and that poor decision-making is a primary contributing factor to accidents.

In response to Cat Driver's original question, I don't think PPCs made much difference in the number or rates of accidents. Factors other than PPCs have driven down the accident rate, and some of them have already been identified by other posters:

1. Less experienced pilots in the 703/704 operations, combined with high movement in the industry.(untill lately)
2. The other thing I have noticed in the young pilots out there, is a lack of professionalism.

In my opinion, a great portion of the pilot error accidents falls to decision making

However the bottom line is the PPC is the minimum standard and it is up to the pilot to learn everything he/she can about the aircraft and how to operate it. Sadly I see too many examples where pilots just don't seem to be interested in putting in the effort and have no mechanical curiosity.

Many factors have affected the reduction in accident rates (widespread use of GPS, more use of higher performance reliable turbine aircraft, mandated insurance/contrails minimum hour requirements, airport improvements , better weather reporting etc etc ) and therefore ascribing the improvement in accident rates to one factor is difficult. TC did not wake up one day and say "lets make more work for ourselves by introduing PPC's" it was a response to a series of high profile accidents.

Setting aside the debate about validity of statistics, I come back to one of Cat Driver's original points in this thread:

I may be wrong but I am almost sure there were no more or even less accidents when we could fly as many different airplanes as the chief pilot checked us out on.

I think that, as he surmised, Cat Driver is wrong about there being less accidents in the past than there are now. Regardless of what is causing accidents, available information indicates there are less accidents now than there used to be, and they happen at a lower rate than they used to.