Can I suggest a slightly different way of looking at this?
IMHO, part of the explanation for things like this is people's belief in "Murphy's law": that anything that *can* go wrong, *will* go wrong.
I personally think Murphy's law is false and misleading: most of the time what *can* go wrong will *not* go wrong. Fail to check the oil in your 172 before going flying? 99% of the time you'll be fine. Get drunk and go out driving? 9 times out of 10 you'll get home safely... then of course there's the 10th time when the whole world changes. Do you think anyone would ever drive drunk if there was a 100% possibility that something would go wrong as a result?
I think the same applies in the situation being discussed here. 99% of the time that pilots attempt to fly through a "questionable" area of weather, they get away with it. And it's human nature to focus on the 99% and think that you'll get away with it this time too, even though "this time" may be the other 1%...
IMHO, part of the explanation for things like this is people's belief in "Murphy's law": that anything that *can* go wrong, *will* go wrong.
I personally think Murphy's law is false and misleading: most of the time what *can* go wrong will *not* go wrong. Fail to check the oil in your 172 before going flying? 99% of the time you'll be fine. Get drunk and go out driving? 9 times out of 10 you'll get home safely... then of course there's the 10th time when the whole world changes. Do you think anyone would ever drive drunk if there was a 100% possibility that something would go wrong as a result?
I think the same applies in the situation being discussed here. 99% of the time that pilots attempt to fly through a "questionable" area of weather, they get away with it. And it's human nature to focus on the 99% and think that you'll get away with it this time too, even though "this time" may be the other 1%...
Comment