I think the idea of flying being ‘terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect’ is meant to inspire a greater breed of pilot, more than anything else. It seems to suggest, optimistically, that flying can be 100% safe if those involved are careful and constantly alert.
More broadly I think the DH.110 crash at Farnborough or the 1958 Vulcan crash at Syerston sort of disprove the quote. Both aircraft broke up midair through no fault of the pilots. Both aircraft were pushing their collective envelopes during the era, and the data simply wasn’t there for such accidents to be predictable and avoidable. In some cases it seems that tragedy almost had to happen for things to be learned. The loss of the BAC 1-11 prototype lead to the discovery of stall characteristics in rear-engined T-tail aircraft. The crash might potentially have been predicted perhaps, but the crash wasn’t the result of carelessness, incapacity or neglect.
Perhaps, looking to the future of pilotless and wholly automated commercial and freight aircraft, the quote is worth revisiting. There will be some that think that the only thing standing between us and 100% safe air travel is the bag of meat in the cockpit. However, a strong argument I’ve seen against pilotless commercial aircraft is that you need a good pilot to problem solve when things get hairy and there are cases out there of pilots who have recovered aircraft from almost entirely hopeless situations. I’m thinking specifically of the video of an almost entirely uncontrollable Tupolev TU-154 returned safely to the ground by a pilot using little more, apparently, than thrust alone after several of the control systems failed.
Anyway, an interesting question to ponder. Perhaps this forum needs a Philosophy section? :rolleyes:
Sign In
