Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Transportation United States

Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 MAX Crashes (wsj.com) 106

Posted by msmash from the fixing-things dept.
Federal accident investigators called for broad changes in decades-old engineering principles and design assumptions related to pilot emergency responses, the first formal U.S. safety recommendations stemming from two fatal Boeing 737 MAX crashes. From a report: As part of lessons learned from the crashes that took 346 lives and grounded the global MAX fleet, the National Transportation Safety Board suggested that Boeing and the Federal Aviation Administration used unrealistic tests to initially certify the aircraft to carry passengers [Editor's note: the link may be paywalled; alternative source]. The board also urged the plane maker and the FAA to pay more attention to interactions between humans and cockpit computers to ensure safety. The board wants Boeing and the FAA to reassess -- and potentially jettison -- what senior investigators portrayed as overly optimistic assumptions about the speed and effectiveness of cockpit-crew reactions to complex automation failures.

Five of the NTSB's seven recommendations, released Thursday, called for the use of more-objective methods to predict likely responses of airline pilots in such cases when automation goes haywire. The board's announcement challenged long-held industry and FAA practices that largely use the nearly instantaneous responses of highly trained test pilots -- rather than those of average pilots, who typically have less experience -- to verify the safety of new jetliner models. Some of the recommendations cover future airliner designs, not just the MAX.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 MAX Crashes More

Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots, NTSB Says After 737 MAX Crashes

Comments Filter:

  • XXX Airlines Fly With US (Score:4, Funny)

    by oldgraybeard ( 2939809 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @01:33PM (#59243482)
    We use average pilots!

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    • Re:XXX Airlines Fly With US (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fat man's underwear ( 5713342 ) <tardeaulardeau@protonmail.com> on Friday September 27, 2019 @01:40PM (#59243510)

      Are you also upset when you get an average doctor in the emergency room?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        Yes. An average pilot is perfectly safe, as is a below average pilot. There are engineering and process procedures and best practices that make sure of it.

        An average doctor is dangerous because there aren't any of those SOPs so the variance is much greater.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by I4ko ( 695382 )

      I'll call your average pilots and raise you the the most average of the average pilots and the best average of the average pilots the money can buy.

    • More seriously:

      Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots

      Good luck with that. Any experienced airplane pilot will tell you that average pilots are just like average citizens. On the plus side, it would make the airplanes almost foolproof, but at an almost infinite cost.

      • Any experienced airplane pilot will tell you that average pilots are just like average citizens.

        Except for the recurring training and evaluation that every pilot flying big iron has to go through, they'd be right. You're abusing the term "average" here, though.

        It's like saying that the average millionaire has $4 million of wealth, and then trying to say that the below average millionaires are poor. The difference is that those who are too far below "average" aren't pilots and don't contribute to the average anymore. Millionaires who are below a million aren't millionaires and don't contribute to the

    • XXX airlines? Average pilots? I'd have the biggest one in the cockpit!!!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by k6mfw ( 1182893 )
      Also note that half of those that graduate from medical schools are below the 50% value of the average of the graduating class. Same with test pilots that graduate from test pilot school.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      That's what pilot exams are for: making sure the average is more than good enough.

      Seems to work too, plane crashes are pretty rare despite how ridiculously marginal aspects of flying are.

    • ...about half their pilots are below average. Which actually raises a serious point. Shouldn't they be using pilots with the lowest acceptable skill levels i.e. the worst pilots that can actually qualify as pilots? If pilot skills follow a gaussian distribution then half the pilots out there are worse than average.

    • By definition, the majority of pilots are average.
      By definition, the majority of drivers are average.
      By definition, the majority of doctors are average.

      Face it, we're stuck with a bunch of average people, and that's never going to change.

  • Ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)

    by Waffle Iron ( 339739 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @01:37PM (#59243500)

    All this hassle, expense and delay could be avoided if the FAA would simply change the rules to only allow above-average pilots to fly aircraft.

    • Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Informative)

      by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @01:52PM (#59243570)

      All this hassle, expense and delay could be avoided if the FAA would simply change the rules to only allow above-average pilots to fly aircraft.

      Yea, that's the ticket... Just where do you get experience as a pilot if you cannot get a job as one? And if you raise the average pilot's skill level, they will be more expensive... Then these more skilled pilots will be average again.

      My Nephew is struggling to get to his 1500 hours now. He's deep in debt for his flight training, looking at making basically poverty level wages flying the right seat once he cracks the 1500 hour mark. He's one of the lucky ones, he actually has a pilot job flying charter for $15/hour in the right seat of a 310 out of some backwater places, looking to move to the left seat and get $18/hour in a few hundred more hours.

      Good thing he is single, young and doesn't mind eating noodles and tuna for days on end.

      • Re:Ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)

        by Shaitan ( 22585 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @02:03PM (#59243630)

        "Just where do you get experience as a pilot if you cannot get a job as one?"

        The military. That is where most people get the flight hours required now. The requirements are actually ridiculously high for a commercial airline pilot already. They aren't talking about pilot skill at flying planes here they are talking about skill at guessing the right answer when the machine is broken. The funny thing is the planes are so reliable and feature loaded that while you need to know a lot to even be able to read the instrument panel you don't have to do a lot to operate them.

        If you want people to be better at this without having a job testing new and buggy craft then you are going to just have to reduce the reliability of the aircraft. Then pilots will have lots of practice recovering and applying workarounds and their day to day work will be far more active and keep their skills honed. While you'd have to be kidding to suggest it, I'm not kidding that really is the only thing that is going to fix it.

      • Re:Ridiculous (Score:4, Funny)

        by Dutch Gun ( 899105 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @02:07PM (#59243646)

        Whoosh. And that's doubly appropriate for airline-related jokes.

      • WHOOOOOOSH!!

      • and the government in general. It's how the Airlines have trained pilots without spending their own money for decades.

      • Just where do you get experience as a pilot if you cannot get a job as one?

        I take it you haven't encountered government bureaucracy before? It's impervious to logic and reason.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by AHuxley ( 892839 )
        Re 'Just where do you get experience as a pilot if you cannot get a job as one?"
        Most nations did that with their mil. Most nations mil did not accept people into "flying" without some real testing and actual skills.

    • Did you realize about 1/2 of the world population had below average intelligence?

      Of course I expect this would be a real hit to pilots egos, who have been volunteered to be a test pilot because their skill has graded them a solid C

    • They do only allow above-average pilots to fly *commercial* aircraft! Compared to those with private pilot licenses, the commercial pilots are probably all at least two orders of magnitude above!

    • I bet Sully could ditch into Lake Wobegon perfectly.

    • They should only hire pilots from Lake Wobegon.

    • don't they become the new Average? And we'd have to do it all over, but then the new pilots would be the Average.

      Eventually we'll be left with one "Super Pilot" (not to be confused with an Uber Pilot, who probably didn't pass the background check). This Super Pilot will be of such a high caliber that we'll all be forced to do as they say, preventing them from every actually flying any planes and ending air travel as we know it.

      This is why I propose Launchpad McQuack, Ace Pilot and personal Pilot to

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by spitzak ( 4019 )

        I think that is what the op was trying to say, as a joke.

        If there was a test that excluded half of today's pilots and only kept the better half, then the "average pilot" would move up to be in the middle of this top half.

  • I look forward to the effort of finding a pilot that is willing to admit they are "average" compared to peers.

    • Re:Reference Cleetus (Score:4, Informative)

      by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @02:20PM (#59243712)

      I look forward to the effort of finding a pilot that is willing to admit they are "average" compared to peers.

      You found one who admits to be less than "average" compared to may peers... I know how to fly, but I also know my skills are poor and unpolished and I'd not recommend you ride with me until I get more experience and put some polish on my skills.. But hey, I have about 100 hours and very little experience and haven't flown in 25 years now. I have a pilot's license, but I am not current and I'd have to get a CFI to sign my log book (which will likely require at least a couple of hours of airtime with them). Compared to a newly minted Private Pilot, who is dangerous enough to scare me, but is legal to fly, I'm worse. But the rules recognize this...

    • Well, if the pilot passes the test, he becomes "above average" and "below average" otherwise.
  • I thought that here in the USA most airline pilots were old military pilots with thousands of hours of experience... Have I been lied to about this my whole life?
    • Not "old' but perhaps "former". And yes, you may have been lied to your whole life about more than just this.

    • Re:Hold on a second (Score:5, Informative)

      by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @02:28PM (#59243744)

      I thought that here in the USA most airline pilots were old military pilots with thousands of hours of experience... Have I been lied to about this my whole life?

      Yea, you have been believing a lie, well depending on what and where you fly. The feeder airlines are desperate for pilots and will take just about any warm body that has the 1500 hours (or 1,000 hours if you come from an approved program) to fly right seat (first officer). Once you get to about 1800 or more, the feeders will transition you to left seat (captain) if you sign up to stay for a few more years. The majors are a bit more picky, but they cannot afford to be that picky if they want to keep their aircraft flying and money rolling in, they will snap up the feeder's left seat flyers as soon as they come available, usually between 2000 and 3000 hours.

      Given the huge rush to fly more and smaller aircraft but keep them full as a means of making money, pilots are in very short supply. Experienced ones are aging out because once you reach the maximum age, they yank your medical and if you want to keep working, you fly a desk.

      • Experienced ones are aging out because once you reach the maximum age, they yank your medical

        Where did you get this ridiculous idea?

        The first class medical certificate for persons who hold an ATP rating and are older than 60 years of age has a duration of 6 months. That means they need to get it renewed every six months. There is nothing in the FARs about "yanking a medical" based solely on age.

        You are perhaps thinking of 14CFR121.383 which prohibits flag certificate holders (the airlines) from using anyone as a pilot once they have reached their 65th birthday.

        Bob Hoover's last reported flight

        • Air Carriers may not use you as a PIC after age 65, after age 60 they must pair the cockpit crews to make sure at least one is under 60 for international routes. This is not to say you cannot fly commercially, only that you cannot do part 121 PIC time after age 65, medical or not. Or at least that's how I understand the 2007 rules change.

          • This is not to say you cannot fly commercially, only that you cannot do part 121 PIC time after age 65, medical or not.

            This is not "yanking" a medical when you reach a certain age. It just is not. You made a ridiculous claim when you claimed it happened.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Too many new airlines globally to do that.
      Also note the use of drones by the CIA.
      The US mil also only wants the best.
      That produces a gap in the numbers of skilled experts needed to fly people in the USA and globally.
      That gap is filled by average people learning to fly different type of aircraft for years.
      Until they get the hours needed for an average airline.
      Its not after WW1, WW2, Vietnam anymore.

  • All flights should also contain the cockpit ratings of crew members so consumers can make informed choices. Think of the children. /s

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      All flights should also contain the cockpit ratings of crew members so consumers can make informed choices. Think of the children. /s

      You may think that's funny but I've met several airline pilots I'd refuse to fly with, even to save my life. Experience with working with these specific individuals has taught me that the moment they are confronted with anything outside of their comfortable learned routine they'd just lock up and fly the plane into the ground for lack of any kind of an ability to think and act for themselves independently of the routine they have learned to parrot.

  • All of the sudden, being a test pilot has far less cachet.

  • “Average” (Score:3)

    by aaarrrgggh ( 9205 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @01:56PM (#59243590)

    So, half the pilots will still crash the plane, eh?

    I think what is really needed is more entry level pilots with known skill limitations should be used in gathering data about response modes to help develop systems that work well for everyone. You don’t necessarily need to dumb everything down, but you need to pick carefully what sets of alarms goes off at any point in time.

    Fortunately there will never be another fly-by-cable airliner designed, but the 737 is going to be around for a while and that will pose challenges in maintaining a universally safe design.

    • The way I read it, the recommendation is that the design shouldn’t have been that only extraordinary pilots could handle the override. The pilots in both crashes had very little time and the override wasn’t simple. As a car analogy, most cars have an emergency brake lever in the center of the car that is easily accessed by the driver. The equivalent to the 737 MAX would be to put the emergency brake behind a series of menus in car entertainment systems that required the correct sequence of butto

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        The way I read it, the recommendation is that the design shouldnâ(TM)t have been that only extraordinary pilots could handle the override. The pilots in both crashes had very little time and the override wasnâ(TM)t simple. As a car analogy, most cars have an emergency brake lever in the center of the car that is easily accessed by the driver. The equivalent to the 737 MAX would be to put the emergency brake behind a series of menus in car entertainment systems that required the correct sequence of

        • Re:“Average” (Score:5, Informative)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @03:31PM (#59244060)

          You forgot to mention the part where if you're diving with enough down trim there's too much pressure on the control surfaces to manually turn the wheel.

          • And the part where dozens of other non-relevant warnings are going off in the cockpit at the same time, creating a cacaphony of confusion.

        • The only new thing with the MAX is that there's new system that can command the trim wheel. One that only works when the autopilot is OFF (MCAS only works when the plane is hand flown). But again, disabling either switch (or both) will fix a runaway condition.

          That is pretty close to the mental model the Ethiopian pilots had, too.

          Unfortunately they focused on making a tactical step of getting back to where the recent moment when the MCAS was not trying to kill them: before they turned off the autopilot.

          Once that effort failed a few times, they finally flipped those switches. But they were not paying attention to their speed and it was simply too difficult to manually readjust trim before they flew into the ground, as the airspeed was physically fighting them.

          It

          • The speed was a serious issue, but they would have had plenty of time to figure out what to do if they hadn't made the insane decision to reset the switches. Go have a look at the DFDR summary. They were maintaining altitude and even climbing slowly despite their trim issues. Then they turn electric trim back on and within 20 seconds or so they're plummeting towards the ground.

      • The way I read it, the recommendation is that the design shouldn’t have been that only extraordinary pilots could handle the override. The pilots in both crashes had very little time and the override wasn’t simple. As a car analogy, most cars have an emergency brake lever in the center of the car that is easily accessed by the driver. The equivalent to the 737 MAX would be to put the emergency brake behind a series of menus in car entertainment systems that required the correct sequence of buttons to deploy. To use a car emergency brakes in your car: “Go to Settings. Go to Brakes. Turn on Allow Emergency Brakes. Then turn on Use Emergency Brakes Now”.

        You forgot... They didn't tell the pilots that the emergency brakes existed in the menus or that other systems could deactivate the emergency brakes without warning you. Oh, and you have 10 seconds to figure this out by walking down the fault analysis tree in the flight manual that's about 5 pages long.

        • You forgot... They didn't tell the pilots that the emergency brakes existed in the menus or that other systems could deactivate the emergency brakes without warning you.

          You forgot. The FAA issued an emergency AD in November following the first crash, and Boeing also notified every customer of the issue. (This information is in the report of the first crash.) The second crash occurred in March, or was it May? Not only did the FAA and Boeing tell everyone who bought one of these things about the systems, but also reiterated the proper emergency procedure to use when it happens.

          Oh, and you have 10 seconds to figure this out by walking down the fault analysis tree in the flight manual that's about 5 pages long.

          There is no "tree" to walk down. There is a specific, known emergency action procedure to use when

        • As a car analogy, most cars have an emergency brake lever in the center of the car that is easily accessed by the driver.

          No, they don't. Most cars do not have an emergency brake. Only a parking brake.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

        I think it goes even beyond that. The recommendation was to make the tests more realistic.

        Usually the test pilot knows the aircraft intimately and was involved in the design process. It's kind of like putting someone in a simulator and saying "okay, now we're going to make the X malfunction. Ready? Here we go." and noting that they managed to take the correct action quickly.

        Instead, put a representative pilot who's had only your recommended training course in the simulator, don't tell them what's going to h

        • The airline manufacturers are frightened of this. While first world airlines will be able to make modest adjustments to handle it, it will soon come to pass that someone will ask how well a genuinely randomly selected group of, say, Indonesian pilots will perform when exposed to a emergency situation they have no specific preparation for.

          • how well a genuinely randomly selected group of, say, Indonesian pilots will perform when exposed to a emergency situation they have no specific preparation for.

            If a randomly selected group of Indonesian pilots cannot deal with a runaway trim situation in an advanced aircraft then this is an issue of Indonesian pilot certification and testing standards, as well as airline testing and certification standards.

          • In order to become a commercial airline pilot, pilots must be certified to fly that specific plans and have demonstrated the ability to handle emergency situations. Not this specific one but general ones. That is normally the standard when investigators look at a crash. Could a normal average pilot avoided the accident? Was it beyond his or her control? Sometimes the answer is that an average pilot should have been able to handle the problem.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            Your bias is showing. *Airlines* are frightened of this because there's a pilot shortage and so they're recruited less experienced and qualified pilots. Those pilots tend to fly the short-range commuter flights, which if anything are more dangerous because the plane spends proportionally more time doing takeoffs and landings.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mvdwege ( 243851 )

          It's like the Flight 1549 investigation: the simulator pilots reliably put down the plane at Teterboro. It wasn't until Captain Sullenberger suggested a 30 second delay to simulate the cockpit decision-making procedure he and his co-pilot went through that they found out that yes, ditching in the Hudson was the only option.

      • It is more about reaction time and problem identification. The pilots had about 3 seconds to identify and respond to the problems per Boeing; test pilots (and one of the Lion Air pilots reacted instinctively in under a second, but the Lion Air pilot was unable to resolve the issue, so he handed the controls over to the first officer while he was troubleshooting, and did not communicate the use of the electric trim (IIRC) to him.

        Etheopian was barely able to just fly the plane in contrast, making them “

        • The pilots had about 3 seconds to identify and respond to the problems per Boeing

          That's just blatant bullshit. The pilots in both incidents were dealing with the problem for several minutes before they crashed.

    • Re:“Average” (Score:5, Insightful)

      by bobbied ( 2522392 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @02:36PM (#59243784)

      I think this is exactly what the FAA is saying. Think of the average pilot and evaluate your user interface design to match their abilities. They are saying assume less than average skills and knowledge in the aircraft and it's systems. Which actually makes sense. In the face of difficulty, folks tend to do stupid things when they panic. It's best to validate your safety designs and evaluate the safety margins using as low of a standard for pilot performance as you can.

      This reminds me of the investigation into the crash into the Hudson river a few years ago. The movie dramatized this, but they flew the scenario in the simulators and where able to land at an airport when they knew what was coming. But, When they gave the pilots 20 seconds to diagnose the problem and evaluate their options, the river was all that was left. Good pilots require time, average pilots require more time to diagnose and deal with unexpected problems. The FAA is wise to recognize this.

  • I am sure this action was taken to satisfy some political need to show that "something is being done."

    But it is the wrong thing to do if you want to actually catch problems in flight testing.

    You need the above average pilots to spot anomalies that less experienced pilots might miss. Then you need to ensure that their reports are paid attention to instead of swept under the rug.

    The theory that the best pilots have the attitude "I can do it so any pilot can do it" just doesn't hold water. I never met

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      You need the above average pilots to spot anomalies that less experienced pilots might miss. Then you need to ensure that their reports are paid attention to instead of swept under the rug.

      The theory that the best pilots have the attitude "I can do it so any pilot can do it" just doesn't hold water. I never met a pilot who thinks like that.

      They do have strong expectations of the minimum things that a pilot should be able to do and above that they have strong feelings about what a pilot should not be doing. But you shouldn't be disregarding their experience because of that.

      That's true, but part of being a test pilot is practicing responding to certain situations, testing procedures and maneuvers, etc. So they are seeing things, whether in sims or in actual aircraft, regularly compared to your run of the mill airline pilot. So if something happens they are more likely to know what's going on, come up with a solution quicker, and act more efficiently than someone who may only have a few hundred or even thousand hours in type.

      • So if something happens they are more likely to know what's going on, come up with a solution quicker, and act more efficiently than someone who may only have a few hundred or even thousand hours in type.

        i have never met a pilot who wasn't keenly aware of what it took to obtain the skill level they have and, more importantly, what it is relative to other pilots. If something challenging happens they will know it, and will know more about it, and therefore are in a better position to direct a systemic solution.

        What the policy seems to be directed at is increasing the number of simulator crashes as much as possible. (I'll assume they don't want more test flight crashes.) Then figure out how to stop tho

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

          So if something happens they are more likely to know what's going on, come up with a solution quicker, and act more efficiently than someone who may only have a few hundred or even thousand hours in type.

          i have never met a pilot who wasn't keenly aware of what it took to obtain the skill level they have and, more importantly, what it is relative to other pilots. If something challenging happens they will know it, and will know more about it, and therefore are in a better position to direct a systemic solution.

          What the policy seems to be directed at is increasing the number of simulator crashes as much as possible. (I'll assume they don't want more test flight crashes.) Then figure out how to stop those from happening. Yeah I get the reasoning but it looks to me you are tossing aside your best sources of expertise. I could never endorse that.

          I've known plenty of pilots that overestimate their abilities or get themselves in over their heads: I literally see it almost every day in my current job.

          Of course you want the best people possible testing aircraft. The problem is that by definition most of your pilots won't be the best, and you can't expect them all to react as such.

          If anything, as part of certification for a new aircraft type, let your test pilots and inspectors do their testing, document any problems/procedure or maneuver variations or

  • Imagine getting that recruiter call (Score:3)

    by synaptik ( 125 ) * on Friday September 27, 2019 @02:18PM (#59243696) Homepage

    Be a pilot
    Your phone rings
    It's Boeing HR
    "We'd like to hire you to test fly our new design!"
    Schedule interview, end the call optimistic
    Come to the realization that you've just been outed as merely average
    Hello darkness my old friend....

    • I'll go.. Take me as a below average pilot!

      But I'm no line pilot for an airline, I'm just a private pilot who's not flown in 27 years... But I'd sure have fun flying the simulators...

  • At Lake Wobegon Airport (Score:3)

    by WillAffleckUW ( 858324 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @03:20PM (#59244016) Homepage Journal

    Yes, but at Lake Wobegon Airport all the pilots are above average.

  • Enter Cully (in 5 parts)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • My sis is 'tarded! She's a pilot now!

    *plane crashes in the background*

    Hey ... where's your tattoo? How come you got no tattoo?

  • ... is a Charles Lindbergh. Some are 'Wrong Way' Corrigans.

  • Just no "old bold" pilots (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JustAnotherOldGuy ( 4145623 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @04:10PM (#59244250) Journal

    Pilot Rule #1: "There are old pilots and bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots."

    Chuck Yeager may have been an exception, but in that case he's the exception that proves the rule.

    Pilot Rule #2: "You can never have 'too much fuel' unless you're on fire."

    Pilot Rule #3: "The three most useless things to a pilot are the altitude above you, runway behind you, and a tenth of a second ago."

    • Pilot Rule #3: "The three most useless things to a pilot are the altitude above you, runway behind you, and "

      fuel in the fuel truck. FTFY.

      • Pilot Rule #3: "The three most useless things to a pilot are the altitude above you, runway behind you, and "

        fuel in the fuel truck. FTFY.

        See Rule #2.

        • Rule 2 is redundant and unnecessary if you properly state the "three most useless things" rule, which isn't rule 3.
  • If you can make it intuitively obvious to them, then it will surely do better with the more experienced crew.

  • Simulators (Score:3)

    by spitzak ( 4019 ) on Friday September 27, 2019 @06:13PM (#59244836) Homepage

    I also wonder if the pilots, even if average, are paying more attention and are ready for something to go wrong when they are flying a simulator. Since something going wrong is far more likely, perhaps 100%.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      A simulator can detect a below average person who is expecting the given type of tests on the "simulator" test day?
  • I've watched all the episodes of air disasters. It's obvious that pilots are usually the cause of any crash even if the initial cause is a mechanical failure or disturbance. It boggles my mind that the pilot can actually crash a modern plane. Shouldn't the plane software basically say no, you can't crash the plane? I know Airbus is trying to get to that but even their planes do stupid things that cause crashes. It should be like the Asimov laws of Robotics. Rule #1, You can't crash the plane. Rule #2, You c

  • Plane Tests Must Use Average Pilots

    Hold on there, Skippy. What happens when a below average pilot gets behind the wheel of one of these new planes? Shouldn't the plane have to pass a test flown by rookie pilots?

    “Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that."

    - George Carlin

  • Unfortunately, the average ones all died during tests.

  • Pilots are extremely busy during takeoff and landing. Why? Because everything the airplane is supposed to do in the sky is communicated between the pilots and ATC by VOICE. That is insane when data links are very reliable. The pilots should NOT be out of the loop, but a reliable data link should be IN the loop. It ain't. Even in the days of the moon shots 50 years ago, ground control could issue commands to the vehicle, but aviation has not caught up. The primary reason is probably pilot cowboy menta
  • Just ask them.

    Especially Fighter Jet Pilots!

    No, no, really. Just ask them.

Slashdot Top Deals

The moon is made of green cheese. -- John Heywood

Close