A Worry For Some Pilots: Their Hands-On Flying Skills Are Lacking (nytimes.com) 173
An anonymous reader shares a report: Pilots now spend more time learning automated systems than practicing hands-on flying, so newer pilots are less comfortable with taking manual control when the computer steers them wrong, according to interviews with a dozen pilots and pilot instructors at major airlines and aviation universities around the world. "The automation in the aircraft, whether it's a Boeing or an Airbus, has lulled us into a sense of security and safety," said Kevin Hiatt, a former Delta Air Lines pilot who later ran flight safety for JetBlue. Pilots now rely on autopilot so often, "they become a systems operator rather than a stick-and-rudder pilot."
As a result, he said, "they may not exactly know or recognize quickly enough what is happening to the aircraft, and by the time they figure it out, it may be too late." [...] While automation has contributed to the airline industry's stellar safety record in recent years, it has also been a factor in many of the crashes that have still occurred around the world. A 2011 study by a federal task force found that in about 60 percent of 46 recent accidents, pilots had trouble manually flying the plane or handling the automated controls. Complicated automation systems can also confuse pilots and potentially cause them to take action they shouldn't, pilots said.
As a result, he said, "they may not exactly know or recognize quickly enough what is happening to the aircraft, and by the time they figure it out, it may be too late." [...] While automation has contributed to the airline industry's stellar safety record in recent years, it has also been a factor in many of the crashes that have still occurred around the world. A 2011 study by a federal task force found that in about 60 percent of 46 recent accidents, pilots had trouble manually flying the plane or handling the automated controls. Complicated automation systems can also confuse pilots and potentially cause them to take action they shouldn't, pilots said.
Nothing new... (Score:5, Insightful)
Children of the magenta line...
Re: (Score:3)
You would think that reasonable training would be required before you hand someone the keys to a 150mil airliner... But I guess not.
Seriously, if pilots can't actually fly the planes during an emergency anymore, why have the pilots at all? Completely automate it and I bet the planes would do just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
When the computer partially or completely hands over control it's often an instrument problem like a faulty sensor not a core logic problem, it's reached some kind of absurd/impossible state. Commercial airlines often fly in the dark, across oceans, through storms and under other conditions where it's impossible or at least extremely hard to navigate visually, so you got little choice but to try to make sense of it. Very often the problem is that you end up ignoring or fighting what you think is faulty when
Re: (Score:2)
You're probably thinking of Air France Flight 447 which crashed in the Atlantic Ocean on its way from Brazil to France.
Uber safety Drivers (Score:2)
Pilots becoming Uber Safety drivers in shock when reality intervenes. But Idiocracy predicted this you may recall
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fly the plane not the technology
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Fear of manual (Score:2)
There's really no way for a pilot to take direct control of an aircraft?
There are ways(*).
According to TFA, the young one are more reluctant to use these ways and switch into manual.
(Or even *realise* that they need to switch into manual).
---
(*) /. pilot to pop-in for the details with their real-world experience.
e.g.: Airbus' Normal law vs. Alternate law - which basically dictate who has the last say regarding what controls what. But we'll need a
(in McCoy voice) "Dammit Jim, I'm a Doctor not an aircraft pilot!"
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a way to transition to alternate law without having instrument failure of some kind?
Not an actual airline pilot, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
I did fly around in glider planes now and then. That's very visceral. Stall the thing, you *know* you're losing control. So regularly when I'm watching mayday / aircrash investigation episodes, I'm like "nose down! pick up speed! get control back! THEN try and get back on track", or something like that. A number of crashes might possibly have been avoided if the pilots had caught on to stalling and remedied it in the obvious way.
Frankly I find it amazing, but intellectually I understand that big airline pil
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently this lack of viscerality is how air france 447 managed to fly into the sea and nobody noticed.
I agree with your comment. But to be fair, in the case of 447, they were flying in the coffin corner, meaning a small amount of airspeed between an aerodynamic stall due to flying to slow, and a stall due to flying too fast (yes, that exists). The first officer of that flight clearly did not recognize the state they were in and yes, essentially flew the plane to the ground.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
But to be fair, in the case of 447, they were flying in the coffin corner, meaning a small amount of airspeed between an aerodynamic stall due to flying to slow, and a stall due to flying too fast (yes, that exists). The first officer of that flight clearly did not recognize the state they were in and yes, essentially flew the plane to the ground.
AF447 crashed because one of the pilots was holding the stick all the way back. I won't speculate as to why, but there was a lot going on in the cockpit. The other pilot was pushing the stick all the way forward, presumably because he recognized what the airplane was doing. In the A330, the control sticks are not physically coupled, so it was possible to have one stick all the way forward and one all the way back simultaneously. In the mode that the automation was running, it's resolution to the discrep
Re: Not an actual airline pilot, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Not an actual airline pilot, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I fly hang gliders. One of the crazy things we do is tie ourselves to pickup trucks and let them tow us up into the sky like big kites. While you're under tow, it's like riding an elevator, and VERY nose up pitch. Hitting the clamp release and going airborne out of the bed of a moving truck is an experience.
As a safety precaution, there's a weak link between the tow line and the tow bridle. It's designed to break if the force gets too high, such as if you lose control and lock out. If you've flown a kite, this is where, in strong winds, they sometimes just decide to flip over and dive straight at the ground.
Anyway, sometimes the weak link breaks for other reasons. I broke one once, crossing a wind shear boundary. When you lose the tow during dynamic ascent you're instantly in a very severe stall. It feels like free fall. It was one of the scariest things that's ever happened to me. You desperately want to *not* be heading for the ground, but the only way to recover is to pull in and dive to pick up speed.
Fortunately my instructor insisted that we practice stall recovery at high altitude and in calm conditions.
Re: (Score:2)
Stall the thing, you *know* you're losing control. ... Apparently this lack of viscerality is how air france 447 managed to fly into the sea and nobody noticed.
You've equated "stall" and "loss of control", and that's not correct. Not every stall results in an uncontrolled aircraft. You're maybe thinking of a stall that progresses into a spin?
One of the most important lessons I got as a progressing ASEL student was during stall training. I was trying to enter a power-on stall, IIRC, and the plane would not "break". That is, it would not make the radical leap from "flight" to "not flight" to indicate a stall. The horn, of course, was blaring. I kept trying to make
Re: (Score:2)
Glider experience should be required for commercial pilots. Full stop.
Evidence should be required for new requirements. Full stop.
Is there any data to show that glider experience leads to fewer accidents in commercial aviation?
Re:Not an actual airline pilot, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
In those incidents of total power failure, (the most famous example being the Gimli glider, where a steep side slip was required to get the approach right) the pilots with gliding experience have performed very well indeed. A glider never has the option of going around after a bad approach, so the pilots are very well trained in using angles to judge their circuits. During training in most countries, pilots even have to fly several flights with all instruments covered, to protect against failures. At least here in Australia stall and spin training is mandatory, and tested each year at the annual flight review.
Most power pilots have never done a full blooded spin, which is a violent and disorienting manoeuvre, due to practice, glider pilots respond very quickly to an incipient spin, and usually take action well before the full spin develops.
Even during takeoff, we are actively expecting problems and have a plan should the tow rope fail for each stage.
I would back the stick and rudder skills and energy management of a well trained glider pilot against any other form of flight training.
Gliding is relatively cheap too, and in competition, many of the pilots are airline pilots who like to use real flying skills, and can afford the latest very high performance gliders.
If I could choose, I wouldn’t fly with a pilot without gliding experience.
Re: (Score:2)
Also worked out well for the Gimli Glider
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gimli_Glider
Don't forget:
Air Transat 236 [wikipedia.org]
TACA 110 [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... hands are on the "wrong" stick. =P
Re:Fear of manual (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, this is blatantly untrue.
It has been well over twenty years, and probably closer to thirty years or more, since enough data had been amassed to prove conclusively that women were SAFER pilots than men.
At the time, no one knew why. I suspect no one knows now. I saw one writer speculate, very carefully, that women MIGHT be a bit more risk-averse than men, to the point that they MIGHT make the determination that "this is getting just a bit too interesting for my taste" a bit sooner than a man might, exercise the Captain's prerogative to choose the alternate plan, a bit sooner than a man might.
A lot of pilot training is teaching judgment and caution and knowing how to recognize that a situation is getting a bit too "interesting", for a suitable definition of "interesting".
Re: (Score:2)
The Asiana flight crew "over-relied on automated systems that they did not fully understand", said Chris Hart, the NTSB's acting chairman.
Nobody will ever fully understand any complex system, and it's only made worse with the addition of piles of constantly-updated software.
Switching between automatic and manual controls during critical moments is always going to have some problems, but in the case of Asiana it was pilot fatigue and poor training generally.
If the plane flies itself 95% of the time, then why is the pilot fatigued?
Re:Nothing new... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
https://vimeo.com/159496346 [vimeo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
https://99percentinvisible.org... [99percentinvisible.org]
Re: (Score:2)
https://airfactsjournal.com/20... [airfactsjournal.com]
Computers and planes (Score:3)
I would never pilot a plane without a physical connection, wires or hydraulics.
But I'm not an airline pilot nor can I afford any plane that doesn't have wires, let alone a fly by wire system.
But at some point a decision will need to be made...do we have pilots or do we have cockpit managers?
Fly by wire is probably unavoidable in the future, but I think that every airliner will need a mode that provides a direct link to the control surfaces without a computer making decisions and overriding input.
Re:Computers and planes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The 737 is not primarily fly-by-wire (not even the MAX). Some secondary flight controls are fly-by-wire (electric tail stabilizer trim, spoilers). The problem is that a pilot needs to know how to recover from runaway stabilizer trim and know that the situation is happening. Since the system was poorly documented, this was a problem.
It would seem that watching the ground get closer during a climb would be one indication that the situation is happening.
Re: (Score:3)
I imagine this is going to get worse... (Score:2)
Of course, this will go spectacularly wrong when someone manages to program a plane to do something that it's not supposed to, and the pilots will have no ability at all to correct it, even if they *ARE* trained to.
Re: (Score:2)
... because of concerns about potential hijackers taking over the plane, I can imagine that there will eventually be an impetus to actually remove the ability for pilots to tell the plane to fly any differently than it is programmed to.
It's almost as if you don't know they lock the cockpit doors these days.
program a plane to not reject bad sensors! (Score:2)
program a plane to not reject bad sensors!
Re: (Score:2)
Like a barrel roll?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why bother? After 9/11, pilots know not to cooperate with hijackers. An appropriate flight pattern will make sure anyone not belted in will be splashing against the aircraft's ceiling repeatedly.
Even against a gun, the aircraft itself wins when it's used as a tool to keep any hijacking fool off balance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Try doing that with an aircraft that weighs 40+ tons, not including the mass of the fuel.
There's this thing called "inertia", y'see... and it's going to put an upper limit on the pilot's ability to subject the plane's occupants to sudden changes that might knock a person off balance while still actually having real control of the plane.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A parabolic trajectory doesn't involve violent direction changes. It's also not conducive to remaining standing.
It's been done in a 707 which is broadly comparable to the larger 737 variants.
https://nypost.com/2014/04/05/... [nypost.com]
Cockpit voice recorder transcript (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
HUman mind (Score:2)
While automation has contributed to the airline industry's stellar safety record in recent years, it has also been a factor in many of the crashes that have still occurred around the world.
And here we are were the humain brain is noteably bad at: Estimating rare risks. Is there a "sweet spot" on how much pilots should lidten to technology and how much to their seat?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes the sweet spot is 100% and 100% in both ways. We need to automate more, and pilots should spend more time on simulators because the times they actually will need to fly will becomes considerably more exciting.
Re: (Score:2)
The "seat" was not required in this case. The plane crashed six minutes after takeoff in CLEAR weather. The number one instrument the pilot has is the big clear one in front of him that shows the world. Instrumentation is a convenience, not a necessity, and the pilot has ONE job. Maintain airspeed in order to not hit the ground.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the one that doesn't work very well at night and breaks down completely in bad weather?
Interviews with a dozen pilots, you say? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Numbers game (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. It is a numbers game, but an INFORMED numbers game.
If something reduces accidents, go with it, but keep an eye out for any problems it might cause.
This plane crashed on a clear day. The pilot should not have had any difficulty overriding some automatic control with yoke forces. This seems to be a case of either someone at a desk deciding that they can make better decisions than the person holding they yoke, or VERY stupid pilots. Seriously, six minutes after takeoff. You're at full power. Is the
Re: (Score:2)
> If you can't figure it out, hand fly to altitude and declare an emergency to figure it out.
That's what the pilots in the two crashes *TRIED* to do, but the plane over-rode them.
> If the plane won't let you climb...FUCK BOEING!!
+100
This is not a new concern (Score:5, Informative)
This issue has been a concern for more than a decade. The more pilots use automation, the more their manual flying skills languish. Manual flying is a skill that one must practice to stay current. It may be like riding a bicycle, you never forget, but the fine skills required to fly accurately without the automation is something you can loose. It takes practice to stay current and proficient. It takes practice to be smooth and accurate, like playing a musical instrument it takes regular playing to keep your skills sharp.
There have been a couple of instances where the pilots where faced with the loss of automation and made mistakes with their manual flying. Or situations like Asiana Airlines Flight 214 where the automation wasn't set properly and the manual flying skill and experience wasn't enough to notice and avoid the accident. Pilots and airlines LOVE automation. Pilots like it because it makes their job easier (when it works). Even an unskilled pilot can fly like a pro using automation. I've been in simulators, and although I've never flown anything more complicated than a Cessna 172, I can get the simulator on the ground without balling it up, usually. Airlines love it because it allows the aircraft to be operated in the most efficient way, saving them fuel and maintenance costs.
But button pushing and turning dials isn't flying. Pilots are spending lots of their time managing and monitoring the automation and very little flying the aircraft. It's hard to keep your manual flying skills in top form, when you do mostly button pushing and turning dials
When the automation fails, and you are forced to grab the controls and fly while trying to diagnose what's wrong with your aircraft, Navigate, Communicate with ATC under high stress, you really want those "stick and rudder" skills sharp and current. It's one less thing to think about while you are trying to wrap your head around what is wrong with the aircraft.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They don't let us blind people fly, but I do believe that the sequence is aviate, navigate, communicate. I don't think you are supposed to diagnose until you are in controlled flight. But that's problematic if you can't stick and rudder fly so you'll never get to diagnosis.
Well, if something is going wrong with the plane, you will often need to diagnose so you know how to aviate, i.e. what you have to compensate for.
Re: (Score:2)
It takes practice to make a smooth crosswind landing. Any dolt that has ever played a video game can climb to altitude and fly in circles. Any dolt can NOT HIT THE GROUND in CLEAR weather.
I had to look up the weather conditions for this crash. It was clear skies. It takes very little skill to take off and maintain altitude in clear weather.
Unless, the plane won't let you. In that case. . . FUCK BOEING!!
Re: (Score:2)
but you do not have pilot's license and have never, ever flown anything.
I have a private pilot's license and am Airplane Single Engine Land rated. I had about 100 hours of flight time before the kids came along and spent all my flying money. I have flown mostly Cessna 150's, have about 20 hours in a Cessna 172 and a little over an hour in an Aeronca Model 7 Champion with a CFI in the backseat. I was working on my IFR rating and my Commercial ticket when I stopped flying due to lack of funds.
As a pilot, I'm not very good and don't claim to be. I've scared myself spit less a
Experience (Score:2)
My cousin's husband has been an airline pilot for about four years. Pilots with less experience usually get the "crappier" routes. So he has to fly down to the Caribbean pretty regularly. According to him, it's pretty good training, as you are sometimes landing on airstrips where air traffic control consists of one guy on a raised platform with binoculars and a radio. It's usually all manual when taking off and landing down there. He lives in the south-east, so it's probably common for his area.
Re: (Score:2)
Routes (Score:3)
Since when is going to Caribbean countries "crap"? It seems like a fun (and relatively inexpensive, depending on country) trip.
Because, when flying from the southeast US, most of the Caribbean is *just* short enough to be considered a "day trip" so you don't get to stay overnight. You fly there, deplane, load up, then fly back. Also, you are mostly flying over water, which is boring. The quality of the airports is pretty variable, as well. Anywhere from a typical modern airport to the aforementioned landing strip. For the more "rustic" airports, the pilots tend to have to do more mechanical work as the ground crews can be unreliabl
Re: (Score:2)
Since when is going to Caribbean countries "crap"? It seems like a fun (and relatively inexpensive, depending on country) trip.
Caribbean turns don't usually overnight. You fly down there, have a 30-45 minute layover, and fly back. Those rotations also usually have 2-4 legs a day, so a lot of short hops. You see the airport but that's it. Like the parent said it's good practice, but multiple takeoffs and landings in a day is a lot more taxing than doing a transoceanic hop with an augmented crew where you spend a good 1/3 of the flight in the crew rest area napping or watching movies.
Re: (Score:2)
Rule for work travel: It's never fun.
I used to drive a truck. I quickly found out that asphalt looks the same everywhere. That applause gets old after the tenth time, when they all get off to have fun (but you don't), and then you immediately watch the batch you dropped last week get back on (now tanned) while you continue to fill out paperwork.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a tip for them (Score:2)
I wear a necklace, cause I wanna know when I'm upside down. - Mitch Hedberg
Re: (Score:2)
I wear a necklace, cause I wanna know when I'm upside down. - Mitch Hedberg
You would think his long hair would work for that too. I do always keep a potato in the oven though.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it don't work that way on a plane.
https://www.boldmethod.com/blo... [boldmethod.com]
A preview of self driving cars ... (Score:2)
A preview of self driving cars ... the question is whether the risks are greater from the autopilot than from the human.
The human is not going to be as well practiced if they normally use autopilot. That's unavoidable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Autopilots in aircraft are closer to cruise control than any level of self-driving in a car.
There was a mythbuster's on self landing aircraft that would dispute your findings. Maybe you should watch it.
Autopilot in aircraft is literally nothing more than setting the airspeed and programming in navpoints, so it basically is cruise control that knows what headings to take.. Autoland is a little more complicated though.
Re: (Score:2)
What heading to take, what altitude to take, and what speed to maintain.
It's a little more than you said, but still FAR easier than a self driving car. I'm never worried about deer jumping in front of me while flying.
At least, not until the last 1000ft. I fly out of a rural, grass strip, and deer like runway grass.
And, so you know, a low pass over the airport to both insure they're not there and to scare them off if they are.
Makes sense (Score:3)
I tried to fly hands on ... (Score:2)
... and, despite vigorous activity, never left the Earth.
I can relate ... (Score:2, Interesting)
... because I used to have a solid memory for most of the landline numbers I needed to call.
Now, I say, "Hey Siri? Call Sue."
I got no fucking idea what her phone number is.
Re: (Score:2)
We will see the same problem with driving. (Score:2)
As people adopt autonomous vehicles, they will either slowly forget or never learn in the first place how to drive in the conditions that make the computer freak out. This is why handing control back to a driver is, at best, a stopgap solution. Within a generation of cars that drive themselves 98+% of the time, most of the population will be unable to drive manually.
they will blame the pilot (Score:5, Insightful)
My friend the airline mechanic told me that accident reports are designed to protect profits. The pilot will always be blamed. Any suggestion of bad design, poor construction or mismanaged maintenance has dire consequences for manufacturers, airlines and others including politicians who depend upon political donations.
My friend has often told me of his discoveries as he goes about his work. Inside a jumbo jet wing he may find beer cans, panties, drug related garbage, as well as tools and loose parts. He found this shocking so he took it upon himself to investigate every airline accident.
Each accident results in a huge report after a multi year investigation. Those reports are available to anyone willing to study hundreds or thousands of pages. The summary will say the pilot was at fault, but if you read carefully you will discover many disturbing facts about the condition of the aircraft.
It shouldn't be necessary to explain to jaded Slashdot readers that money is the motivator in most corporate and government behavior. Blaming the pilot is the way to reduce costs and bad publicity. If there is a flaw in the airplane, it will be fixed quietly.
Re: (Score:3)
Your friend the airline mechanic should actually read the accident reports. I do, and I regularly see not suggestions but flat out pronouncements of "bad design, poor constructi
Which is why North America is great (Score:4, Insightful)
The freedom to fly is greatest in two countries - the US and Canada, where anyone suitably trained and documented can get in and fly. And the little Cessnas and Pipers aren't the highly automated Boeings or Airbuses, they're quite manual. If you're lucky, you'll have a partial autopilot - one axis (elevator) usually, fancy pants ones have two (elevator and aileron).
One could fly from one end of the country to the other, avoiding controlled airspace and thus not talking to anyone if anyone so desired.
Some other countries notably Europe, imposes fees on flying. Lots of taxes. Sure they have some GA flights, but to do so requires a fair bit of perseverance and money.
The vast majority of countries though, make such thought of flight impossible.
Now tell me which pilot will likely have the best flying skills? The one who can on a spare day roll up to their little airport, get out and fly, or one who can only fly the bit iron and the simulator because the only other flying is military..
It's why I worried less about the US and Canada being late to the grounding party for the 737 MAX - the pilots here simply have better access to flight on their spare time than pretty much everyone else.
The only way to maintain stick and rudder skills is to fly stick and rudder, and really, that's stupidly easy to do in the US and Canada - you literally get to the airport and fly - no permits, no flight plans (within limits), and other than fuel, no taxes to just punch holes in the sky.
In China, they noticed this and the Chinese military let civilian pilots have a narrow slice of sky to fly between two airports in China. But you tell me - who will be the better pilot - one who has to put down their wings at the end of the day, or one who has access to the same sky they were just in?
And no, you don't have to own your own airplane Renting is popular, as is renting an instructor.
Re: (Score:2)
The only way to maintain stick and rudder skills is to fly stick and rudder, and really, that's stupidly easy to do in the US and Canada - you literally get to the airport and fly - no permits, no flight plans (within limits), and other than fuel, no taxes to just punch holes in the sky.
Well, you're forgetting the price of the plane. Even rent is pretty expensive. It's one of the reasons they are looking at a dearth of pilots to replace those retiring soon. Too few pilots with enough hours to take over. Even military pilots are becoming fewer in number. If you can own or rent a plane to get enough hours, then you're already making more money than you would as a pilot. The US has tons of pilots but very few with the hours needed to get jobs. Sport skydivers often have people flying for free
Re: (Score:2)
Explain this then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
It is more about culture than anything else (Score:2)
A common joke is that being an airline pilot pays well enough for pilots to afford flight hours.
Flying used to be a passion. The traditional path is to first start as a student pilot at a young age, then get a private pilot licence and get a bit of experience on light aircraft. But flying is expensive, so the next step is usually to become a flight instructor. Next is IFR qualification, larger aircraft, professional pilot licence and finally airliners. But airliners are pretty boring when it comes to actual
Re: (Score:2)
Quite so, glider pilots feel for the air is unmatched. The high level competition pilots have a freakish ability to find what is known as energy lines in the air purely by feel. Recently, the 100km triangle record was broken with an average speed of 205km/h approx 110kts.
Interestingly, each day the air has different properties of lift and sink, the size and strength and the pattern of distribution.
For example, when flying between thermals you can feel an upcoming thermal in the nature of turbulence before y
Plane must *NOT* over-ride pilot (Score:3)
Case 1) Before "The Miracle on the Hudson" there was "The Miracle at Gottrora" https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] Executive summary...
* Scandanavian Airlines flight 751 (MD-80) took off
* The wings were not properly de-iced by the ground crew.
* Clear ice broke off from the wings and was ingested by the 2 engines, located at the tail end of the plane.
* The left engine caught fire, which was extinguished, but it was basically dead
* The crew reduced throttle to limit further damage to the one functioning engine
* With a competent pilot, the plane should have been able to limp in back to the airport, on one engine, for an emergency landing
* But at this point the ATR (Atomatic Thust Restoration) algorithm kicked in. It basically said, "thou shallst not reduce throttle whilst climbing during take off".
* It tried to to get 2 engines worth of thrust out of the one remaining engine.
* Not a good idea. Just like redlining the shit out of your car engine, this quickly destroyed the remaining functional engine.
* The crew managed to dead-stick crash-land in a snow-covered field without killing anybody.
* Of the 129 people on board, 25 were injured, 2 seriously, but no fatalities. That's why it was called the "Miracle at Gottrora".
Case 2) As for the 737 MAX, at worst, MCAS should sound an alarm, it should *NOT* over-ride the pilot, and drive the plane nose-down into the ground. If the 737 MAX can't be easily flown by a competent pilot without the MCAS band-aid, the 737 MAX should have its airworthiness certificate revoked.
Re: (Score:2)
MCAS should sound an alarm, it should *NOT* over-ride the pilot, and drive the plane nose-down into the ground. If the 737 MAX can't be easily flown by a competent pilot without the MCAS band-aid, the 737 MAX should have its airworthiness certificate revoked.
Of course the 737 Max 8 can be easily flown by a competent pilot without the aid of MCAS. A competent pilot will be able to keep the craft inside the flight envelope in all but the rarest circumstances, and will never experience the action of MCAS.
MCAS is designed to save the plane if 1) circumstances get rare, or 2) the pilot is less than competent.
Even in situation #1, the MCAS commands can be overridden quickly by any competent pilot through a pair of disconnect switches if, in the pilot's competent
Re: (Score:2)
Case 2) As for the 737 MAX, at worst, MCAS should sound an alarm, it should *NOT* over-ride the pilot, and drive the plane nose-down into the ground. If the 737 MAX can't be easily flown by a competent pilot without the MCAS band-aid, the 737 MAX should have its airworthiness certificate revoked.
First off, exceptional post, apologies for cutting it short (for readability). The thing about the 737 MAX MCAS is that its designed to make the MAX flying characteristic the same as the previous 737 NG to save on pilot retraining and type re-certification. This means that it will automatically adjust some control surfaces and override the pilots control to make it seem like the pilot was flying an older 737 NG. This is an issue because Boeing needed to move the engine forward of the wing to get enough gro
It's worth remembering... (Score:2)
This is news because of Luddites afraid of flying and computers and tech they don't understand. The risk of aircraft crashes is trivial. The total casualties are trivial compared to other modes of transportation.
Aviation "safety" before modern systems was ghastly. Don't have too much respect for meatbags in cockpits. Some are awesome but most aren't. In WWII the US crashed nearly as many aircraft in CONUS as it lost in combat.
It's not the only profession so affected. (Score:3)
I am not a pilot, but I recognize concerns that effect other life-and-death professions and skills. The wisdom of the comments above is that automated flying is safe and efficient, but it can go wrong, and when it does, somebody with skills needs to be at the helm. But, if automation robs pilots of hands on experience, their knowledge to handle the emergencies is compromised. The focus in pilot training should be to ensure that they get the hands on flying time.
My anesthesiologist colleagues always describe their profession as hours upon hours of sheer boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror. Automated ventilators, monitors, and iv fluid pumps regulate most of the mundane tasks, making modern anesthesia one of the safest things you can possibly do. But, when something goes wrong, no system of automated controls or AI powered technology can take over for the seasoned anesthesiologist. It's a matter of life and death, not 150 lives at a time as on a 737, but one life at a time, which can add up.
As a surgery resident, I learned the tried and true statistics that hernias are mostly a natural condition, and that post-surgical incisional hernias were infrequent. When they did happen, they were usually for legitimate reasons, and later on, they could be fixed, reliably, by the same experienced surgeons who knew how to avoid them in the first place. Then, circa 1990, surgeons started to use the laparoscope to do abdominal surgery without incisions. Mostly, that has been a huge benefit to the public, reducing hospital lengths of stay, minimizing many conventional surgical complications, and making once difficult operations safe and effective. The downside though is that surgeons have since forgotten how to properly make an abdominal incision, and especially, and more important, how to repair it. Since 1990, there has been an exponential rise in the rate of incisional hernias, the rate of failed hernia repairs and recurrent hernias, and severe morbidity to accompany those bad results. Furthermore, instead of focusing on acquiring the lost skills, surgeons have turned to companies who manufacture a boatload of flawed plastic implants that have made the problems far worse. (Search if you will on terms such as "hernia mesh complications" or "hernia mesh lawsuit".) The problem has reached epidemic numbers, and the death rate from complications of that sort now almost certainly exceed the casualty rate from commercial air accidents. As someone whose career has become ever more focused on fixing those unnecessary messes, it is all too obvious that a new technology that is valuable for ordinary everyday simple affairs robs the professionals and practitioners of vital skills needed for the unusual and extreme problems.
A while back I saw a short on TV, sad but true. A man and woman, professionals in business suits and brief cases, enter a huge high rise office building and start riding the long tall escalator from the lobby to the third floor. Half way up, there is a power outage. The escalator stops. They look around bewildered, and call out for "Help, is there anyone who can help us?" They knew not how to walk up or down the escalator, idiots of the technology era. Technology is wonderful. But when the lights go out or the software balks or nature doesn't cooperate, people need to have foundational skills. We as a society have made a mistake putting so much focus on teaching new exciting chi chi technologies, and forgetting the reasons for learning the ABC's, the 3-R's, and other essential skills. For a surgeon, sewing up an incision so it does not fall apart is a fundamental skill. People suffer when surgeons fail to do so. I am not a pilot, but I can appreciate that stick and rudder skills are of the same essential importance. Our educational systems need to be corrected to supply those essential skills.
2011 study? (Score:2)
Re:This seems easy enough to remedy. (Score:5, Informative)
How about training pilots how to fly?
Also, does anyone else read this story as, "I don't know how to do my job, but I want to keep getting paid to do it."?
Fucking stupid.
Stick and Rudder skills are like playing a musical instrument. They require constant practice and exercise to stay "current".
This is not a new realization, but one that's been enshrined in the FAA regulations for decades longer than I've been alive. Pilots are required to "be current" meaning they have flown a minimum number of landings as PIC in the last few months before they can fly. I am also are required to "be current" with a flight instructor every year. Airline pilots must be "current" in their type ratings, which includes both training, check rides and flight time.
So it actually makes sense.. We are taking away the On the Job training opportunity in Stick and Rudder operation, replacing it with button pushing and dial turning. What's a pilot to do? Company regulations likely REQUIRE he/she use the automation for safety, efficiency and passenger comfort so it's hands off the controls while "Auto Pilot" flies for you.
Re: (Score:2)
How about training pilots how to fly?
Also, does anyone else read this story as, "I don't know how to do my job, but I want to keep getting paid to do it."?
Fucking stupid.
Stick and Rudder skills are like playing a musical instrument. They require constant practice and exercise to stay "current".
This is not a new realization, but one that's been enshrined in the FAA regulations for decades longer than I've been alive. Pilots are required to "be current" meaning they have flown a minimum number of landings as PIC in the last few months before they can fly.
Nope. The landing requirement is only to carry passengers.
I am also are required to "be current" with a flight instructor every year.
Nope. It's called a biannual, but it is only required once every TWO years.
Airline pilots must be "current" in their type ratings, which includes both training, check rides and flight time.
So it actually makes sense.. We are taking away the On the Job training opportunity in Stick and Rudder operation, replacing it with button pushing and dial turning. What's a pilot to do?
Join a glider club. One flight a month will keep them MORE than prepared to handle a powered craft.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the clarifications.. I'm a licensed pilot, single engine land, but I've not flown as PIC for 25+ years because with the kids I cannot afford it. I am obviously not current.
Re: (Score:2)
"Stick and Rudder skills are like playing a musical instrument. " - We can already tell you do neither, in reality. Stop blathering fake advice, moron.
Well, you don't have to believe me of course, but I am a licensed pilot and I also play the piano. I know how to do both, but I am also out of practice, having not flown or played for almost two decades. Knowing how, does not make me skilled. Which is why, if I wanted to fly again, I'd have to get my medical renewed, contact a flight instructor for a refresher and get him/her to sign of that I have enough skills to fly. THEN I'd have to "get current" flying a specified number of landings before I could t
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be that hard to just require that all pilots must fly one entire flight a week in full manual mode, just to keep their skills up?
Commercial pilots are required by the FAA to log 3 take offs and landing in a 90 day period. Some of them still barely fly once in 3 months. Good luck trying to get them to fly once a week.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This plane crashed six minutes after takeoff in clear weather. With the upgraded, more powerful engines, the rustiest of pilots would have been able to keep the plane climbing. It is just NOT that hard. Setting up an airliner for landing is crazy hard. Not hitting the ground is actually EASY.
The more I read, the more I think that recurrent training would have done nothing to help this accident.
Re: (Score:2)
All other things being equal, the plane's computer can realize and react to problems more quickly than a human. We have made planes safer by automating much of the cockpit, and the statistics seem to bare that out. I am not sure putting a human in control more frequently is the answer. You will be adding the very risk that you are trying mitigate. Additionally, will piloting a 2-hour flight once a week really sharpen their skills? I would think the better solution would be to have more time in the simu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which one's the brake again?
The one in the middle.
Re: (Score:3)
I also can think of a couple of accidents where pilots saved the day. I guess the real question is number of lives saved by pilots saving the day vs number of lives saved by automation.
Re: (Score:2)
From the actual NTSB report on this: