Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Couple more incidents of pilots forgetting how to fly a plane...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Schwartz
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    What I mean is a set of standard requirements for RELIABLE redundancy in hardware provisions and software engineering standards including third party dependencies, so that if a server or hub or switch or individual power source goes down anywhere in the enterprise, it doesn't bring the entire system down with it; it doesn't cause massive groundings that last many hours and result in elevated scheduling pressures that might infect a pilot's better judgement, so it doesn't result in accidents.



    Yes. However sometimes it doesn't really work that way. Confusion is a very good way to fumble that responsibility. Therefore it is the responsibility of industry oversight, within the realm of practicality, to thwart anything that might lead to such confusion. Also, vision and the ability see beyond one link of the casual chain never hurts.
    Speaking from experience, I guarantee they had all that in place for those other failures. Guaranteeing redundancy is just not possible, and in my experience every redundant system I've ever worked with in 30 years in computers still has a way of failing. You're better off just being able to restart the thing or move it quickly.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianw999
    replied
    Originally posted by flashcrash View Post

    Wow. And that's a lot of debris to leave on the runway!
    Naaah, that’s OK, that will polish out with some T Cut and a lick of touch up paint.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Schwartz View Post

    I tend to agree that if the software on that tablet is relied upon to ensure a safe flight, then yes, it is deemed critical. Unless there is a reliable manual way to validate for potential mistakes, I would call it critical. If I can check in passengers with a piece of paper instead of a computer, it has no bearing on the process of flying the plane safely. Time pressure comes from all directions and would exist whether the computers were working or not. The systems that create smooth business operations are a business problem and they will allocate their investment as they deem appropriate to manage the risks of failure. Regulating business operations software would be a sure way to ensure all innovation dies and that no process improvements will ever be made.
    What I mean is a set of standard requirements for RELIABLE redundancy in hardware provisions and software engineering standards including third party dependencies, so that if a server or hub or switch or individual power source goes down anywhere in the enterprise, it doesn't bring the entire system down with it; it doesn't cause massive groundings that last many hours and result in elevated scheduling pressures that might infect a pilot's better judgement, so it doesn't result in accidents.

    There are many things that can introduce confusion in the flight deck and it is the the responsibility of the pilots to remember to fly the plane first.
    Yes. However sometimes it doesn't really work that way. Confusion is a very good way to fumble that responsibility. Therefore it is the responsibility of industry oversight, within the realm of practicality, to thwart anything that might lead to such confusion. Also, vision and the ability see beyond one link of the casual chain never hurts.

    Leave a comment:


  • flashcrash
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    So define 'critical to flying the airplane".
    I think that's a great question to ask. A question that IMHO isn't asked often enough. In the context of BCP, there are some definitions of "critical" that may or may not be relevant here. There's also a subtle distinction between "critical" and "mission critical". If you'll forgive me playing with semantics for a moment, you may mean the latter. But just for fun, here are the working definitions in my world:

    Critical: A function without which an operation cannot remain viable in the medium/long term. Its absence would result in financial, legal, or other penalties.
    Mission Critical: A function essential to day-to-day operations. Its absence would cause "normal" operations to halt immediately.

    I'm not sure how relevant those are for commercial aircraft, but I thought I'd at least put them on the table for debate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Schwartz
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    So define 'critical to flying the airplane". The EFB updating software is critical to avoiding mistakes in calculating references speeds that must be correct in order to avoid critical airborne situations. The flight booking software is critical to preventing groundings and delays that create backlogs that place pressure on flights to depart or land under questionable conditions and to continue and complete the mission rather than play it safe and incur additional delays. ANYTHING that introduces confusion or pressure to the cockpit is critical to flying the airplane. Many if not most accidents today are the result of pilot error and many of those are they result of implied pressures or calculated errors.
    I tend to agree that if the software on that tablet is relied upon to ensure a safe flight, then yes, it is deemed critical. Unless there is a reliable manual way to validate for potential mistakes, I would call it critical. If I can check in passengers with a piece of paper instead of a computer, it has no bearing on the process of flying the plane safely. Time pressure comes from all directions and would exist whether the computers were working or not. The systems that create smooth business operations are a business problem and they will allocate their investment as they deem appropriate to manage the risks of failure. Regulating business operations software would be a sure way to ensure all innovation dies and that no process improvements will ever be made.

    There are many things that can introduce confusion in the flight deck and it is the the responsibility of the pilots to remember to fly the plane first.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Schwartz View Post

    I would not argue about regulating software that is considered critical to flying the airplane (like the software on the plane). I do object to regulating the systems that operate the airline.
    So define 'critical to flying the airplane". The EFB updating software is critical to avoiding mistakes in calculating references speeds that must be correct in order to avoid critical airborne situations. The flight booking software is critical to preventing groundings and delays that create backlogs that place pressure on flights to depart or land under questionable conditions and to continue and complete the mission rather than play it safe and incur additional delays. ANYTHING that introduces confusion or pressure to the cockpit is critical to flying the airplane. Many if not most accidents today are the result of pilot error and many of those are they result of implied pressures or calculated errors.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    It is a matter of time until there is one where all what's left is debris.

    Leave a comment:


  • flashcrash
    replied
    Originally posted by Schwartz View Post
    Another example of incorrect values entered for takeoff. That was some tail strike. https://avherald.com/h?article=4d2bf0d1&opt=0
    Wow. And that's a lot of debris to leave on the runway!

    Leave a comment:


  • Schwartz
    replied
    Another example of incorrect values entered for takeoff. That was some tail strike. https://avherald.com/h?article=4d2bf0d1&opt=0

    Leave a comment:


  • Schwartz
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    And pretty important to regulate it, right? Is there anything in the FAR's sbout this modern component of aviation safety?
    I would not argue about regulating software that is considered critical to flying the airplane (like the software on the plane). I do object to regulating the systems that operate the airline.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by kent olsen View Post
    So they engaged the autopilot, which should have allowed them to look around and see what was going on, speed, abnormal pitch, flap and landing gear position, brother. Next time I'll take the train.
    Human factors often trumps 'should have'.

    Leave a comment:


  • kent olsen
    replied
    So they engaged the autopilot, which should have allowed them to look around and see what was going on, speed, abnormal pitch, flap and landing gear position, brother. Next time I'll take the train.

    Leave a comment:


  • LH-B744
    replied
    Originally posted by Schwartz View Post
    [...]

    Seems like this crew got disoriented in the dark and nearly crashed the plane on go-around (i.e. thoughts of Kobe's pilot).

    [...]
    I just have 'telephoned' with another jetphotos senior member who also loves the year 1978. So, Kobe Bryant is only one of three men who I know (from TV or/and the internet) and who have been mentioned here in this forum, who love the year 1978. If you meet the right decisions, you normally do not die at the age of 41. In my humble opinion. And that was the only reason why in another section of this forum I used a word which I do not use every day.

    I wondered if in the Calabasas case only one man on board met the completely wrong and fatal decision to fly into the fog. I used a rather hard four letter word (which btw really has.. five letters), but today I'm ready to delete it. I only have to find again that forum post of mine.
    [Done.]

    As far as I know, it was not dark at night, when Kobe Bryant died. It was a Sunday morning, approx 0900 a.m. local at Orange County Airport 'John Wayne'.

    Nevertheless, what you wrote somehow reminded me of JFK junior. That case was under investigation until the former chief NTSB investigator Greg Feith wrote
    'spatial disorientation by night'
    on the death certificate of JFK junior. Who by the way died at the age of only 38. But that's not really an achievement, in my eyes.

    Incidents of pilots who forgot how to fly a passenger aircraft, not important if that's a helicopter or.. a Piper PA-32R Saratoga (JFK junior again), which indeed is a 300 hp strong single piston engine propeller, and not a turbopropeller. I soon get as old as a cow but still I'm learning things..

    You damn have passengers with you, you're not alone, compared to a Cargo pilot. That's one of the reasons why I could never imagine to be a Cargo pilot. I need the thought, behind me in the cabin they all just order their first coffee. And I take care so that the coffee gets into the passenger, and not on the floor. Did I mention that I love the bank angle limiter in the B744 simulator?

    Passengers really like to survive. No difference to good passenger aircraft pilots!

    PS: Do men of my age write a 'sticky topic' warning on top of a whole quite big and quite traditional thread if there is a quite hard four letter word with indeed five letters in it?
    Last edited by LH-B744; 2020-02-26, 01:51. Reason: I just removed that word. Sorry. Minus an 's' which disturbed me.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post

    And pretty important to regulate it, right? Is there anything in the FAR's sbout this modern component of aviation safety?
    The FARs (14 CFR) will not contain any specific requirement for software or the technical performance of electronic devices. You will find provisions saying that the pilot has to plan the flight using current information (doesn't matter if it comes from a paper manual or an iPad). And then you have TSOs that define the requirements of specific pieces of equipment (from radios to EGPWS). Probably there should be a TSO for EFB, I have no idea if there is one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by Schwartz View Post

    Hard to argue with you on this one. When the software on the portable computer becomes essential to the operation of the aircraft, then I would say it becomes pretty important to get it right.
    And pretty important to regulate it, right? Is there anything in the FAR's sbout this modern component of aviation safety?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X