Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Air Canada pulls a Hans Solo

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
    What they want and what they are training for is a little human robot.
    I think you've hit the nail on the head there. The airlines want a human in the cockpit because pointing fingers at a person is much more credible/fulfilling than pointing them at a machine when something goes wrong. But in every other respect, they want a machine.
    Be alert! America needs more lerts.

    Eric Law

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
      1. the new wonder kids that you describe and Evan and 3WE seem to think are the end all to beat all.

      2. ***“YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE DOING THAT”***
      1. I am glad you have retired as you have evidenced plenty of declines in mental acuity."I (3BS) think the new kids are the end to beat all"??? Ok, man whatever.

      2. Now, shall we really believe that your FO ONLY hand flew to or from 250 feet + every 6 months on the sim...and had the near zero understanding of the utility of hand flying "to altitude", and that your little lecture, that day...changed him forever?

      To quote elaw below, "Great story"...but maybe a little bit too great, Captain...

      And, although I've said it many times- I'll repeat it slowly for you- There is usually a middle ground to this. Indeed, I'm sure there's guys who do religiously click on the autopilot and JUST monitor things as Evan would like. I tend to blame these sorts of people for botching a super-basic 777 landing on a beautiful afternoon.

      I am also sure that there are guys who have never flown a Piper Cub that hand fly the crap out of their RJ/Airbus/Boeing/whatever...and who can brutally beat up Gabriel on fundamentals AND out regurgitate Evan on procedures. I can also think of one person who tells a story of the check airman saying, "They don't pay you extra for hand flying"...(much less romantic, much more believable).

      Evan actually says fundamentals are important (progress has been made). His bias and deep disdain for fundamentals and lack of comprehension of human factors still sneaks out (thus Gabriel's preaching)...someday, he may remove the training wheels from his bike, or drive a car and make a mistake like the rest of us.
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
        Evan actually says fundamentals are important (progress has been made). His bias and deep disdain for fundamentals and lack of comprehension of human factors ...
        Ok, man whatever.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
          1. I am glad you have retired as you have evidenced plenty of declines in mental acuity."I (3BS) think the new kids are the end to beat all"??? Ok, man whatever.

          2. Now, shall we really believe that your FO ONLY hand flew to or from 250 feet + every 6 months on the sim...and had the near zero understanding of the utility of hand flying "to altitude", and that your little lecture, that day...changed him forever?

          To quote elaw below, "Great story"...but maybe a little bit too great, Captain...

          And, although I've said it many times- I'll repeat it slowly for you- There is usually a middle ground to this. Indeed, I'm sure there's guys who do religiously click on the autopilot and JUST monitor things as Evan would like. I tend to blame these sorts of people for botching a super-basic 777 landing on a beautiful afternoon.

          I am also sure that there are guys who have never flown a Piper Cub that hand fly the crap out of their RJ/Airbus/Boeing/whatever...and who can brutally beat up Gabriel on fundamentals AND out regurgitate Evan on procedures. I can also think of one person who tells a story of the check airman saying, "They don't pay you extra for hand flying"...(much less romantic, much more believable).

          Evan actually says fundamentals are important (progress has been made). His bias and deep disdain for fundamentals and lack of comprehension of human factors still sneaks out (thus Gabriel's preaching)...someday, he may remove the training wheels from his bike, or drive a car and make a mistake like the rest of us.
          See, you have proven my point to a tee. The day and age of pilots that “fly” is over. And you seem to think that is the way it should be. This same F/O in the story checked in to Washington center “ Good evening Washington center, this is Giant 641 leaving 20000 feet for flight level 23 O” You see anything wrong with that? I remember as a kid of around 8 or 9 going to the airport with my father. After all the “old timer” (they were probably all in their 40’s and most, flying for the airlines) put away their Cub’s, Champ’s, Pitt’s and Stearman’s they would sit around drink a cold one and shoot the shit. I remember one day a good friend of my father’s, an Eastern L-1011 Captain said, “when we are gone, that will be the last of the real aviators”. You know what, he was off one generation, but he saw what was coming. If you are young enough, you might get to go on a “Disney” like flight where all you have is flight attendants and a computer does everything else. As for me, I will take my BMW or a bicycle instead.

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by elaw View Post
            I think you've hit the nail on the head there. The airlines want a human in the cockpit because pointing fingers at a person is much more credible/fulfilling than pointing them at a machine when something goes wrong. But in every other respect, they want a machine.
            I have to disagree here. The airlines want the safest solution in the cockpit. If a computer could replace a pilot today, then they would be trying to get that to happen. Computers will replace truck drivers very soon, and they have already replaced train drivers. The complexity of driving those vehicles is far lower than that of an airplane, and computers are good enough to replace humans in those cases. Given the amount of different things that can go wrong on a plane, and given the complexity of the various accident scenarios that can occur, a human is still far more qualified in many cases to handle those emergencies on a plane. The trick is to limit the damage a flawed human can do while still keeping them skilled so that they can do things manually when something bad happens.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
              Well Evan, You will be very happy to know that is where the industry is heading. What they want and what they are training for is a little human robot. Get to the airplane 30 minutes prior to departure, program the FMS with the SID, the route, the step-climbs, the decent, and the STAR. Call for pushback taxi to the runway, do the take-off (hoping that everything works) and at 250 feet above the ground, call for left, center or right auto-pilot to command. Sit back, talk on the radio occasionally, do a little paperwork, maybe make an announcement to the back or two, eat a little on a longer flight, then pull out the IPad with the charts on it for the arrival airport, check the arrival against the ATIS off of the ACARS, set the auto-brakes, do an auto-land and then finally disconnect the auto-pilot and taxi to the gate.


              Works great until the day you come out of Bogota, loose number one do to an uncontained failure that throws a titanium turbine blade into number two. You think the auto-pilot will fly the aircraft now?
              I hope you don't think this makes me happy. I dreamed of being a pilot when I was a kid. I bought a large poster of the 747-200 cockpit when I was 9 and used to lie in bed and marvel over every inch of it. One of the reasons that dream faded for me was that I realized the future of piloting wasn't going to be as far from the boring office job as it once was. And now it seems as if it will become even more boring than that (aside from the view of course). You were fortunate to be a pilot when the job was more of a physical one and you are certainly getting out at the right time.

              But what does make me happy is to arrive safely at my destination. Autoflight has made the skies immensely safer, especially as they get more crowded. Planes used to collide more often. Pilots used to fly into terrain more often. GPS and WAAS (and soon LAAS) have made it pretty hard to fly into a mountain (or land on a taxiway) these days. Synthetic vision could make visibility minima obsolete. It will get ever more automated as the technology becomes more fool-proof. Can you say "Autotakeoff"?

              The tech has also made it far more fuel-efficient. Human pilots just cannot match the efficiency of autoflight. Worldwide aviation produces as much greenhouse emission as the nation of Germany and it is rapidly expanding. If you have children (or grandchildren) this should be of great concern to you. Actually, it should be even if you don't...

              The concern in all this, as you say, is that the flying skills needed to take over when the automation gives up will atrophy. But there is no reason why this has to happen. Autoland is not available under many circumstances and most pilots, I suspect, still hand fly the last distance to the runway. And, come on, they ARE ALL trained to hand fly. Furthermore, SIM technology today is very high fidelity, with wind components built in (though not gravitational illusions). It might not be as valuable as actual flight time but I doth think you exaggerate the extent of the situation.

              Poor fundamental skills today are not the result of the move toward automation as much as they are the result of poor pilot screening and training standards.

              My guess is that flying will continue to become safer (terrorism aside) with most accidents arising from poor systems proficiency rather than poor flying skills. Have you ever REALLY flown with a 'robot' pilot who you felt could not fly out of a A/P failure situation?

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                I hope you don't think this makes me happy. I dreamed of being a pilot when I was a kid. I bought a large poster of the 747-200 cockpit when I was 9 and used to lie in bed and marvel over every inch of it. One of the reasons that dream faded for me was that I realized the future of piloting wasn't going to be as far from the boring office job as it once was. And now it seems as if it will become even more boring than that (aside from the view of course). You were fortunate to be a pilot when the job was more of a physical one and you are certainly getting out at the right time.

                But what does make me happy is to arrive safely at my destination. Autoflight has made the skies immensely safer, especially as they get more crowded. Planes used to collide more often. Pilots used to fly into terrain more often. GPS and WAAS (and soon LAAS) have made it pretty hard to fly into a mountain (or land on a taxiway) these days. Synthetic vision could make visibility minima obsolete. It will get ever more automated as the technology becomes more fool-proof. Can you say "Autotakeoff"?

                The tech has also made it far more fuel-efficient. Human pilots just cannot match the efficiency of autoflight. Worldwide aviation produces as much greenhouse emission as the nation of Germany and it is rapidly expanding. If you have children (or grandchildren) this should be of great concern to you. Actually, it should be even if you don't...

                The concern in all this, as you say, is that the flying skills needed to take over when the automation gives up will atrophy. But there is no reason why this has to happen. Autoland is not available under many circumstances and most pilots, I suspect, still hand fly the last distance to the runway. And, come on, they ARE ALL trained to hand fly. Furthermore, SIM technology today is very high fidelity, with wind components built in (though not gravitational illusions). It might not be as valuable as actual flight time but I doth think you exaggerate the extent of the situation.

                Poor fundamental skills today are not the result of the move toward automation as much as they are the result of poor pilot screening and training standards.

                My guess is that flying will continue to become safer (terrorism aside) with most accidents arising from poor systems proficiency rather than poor flying skills. Have you ever REALLY flown with a 'robot' pilot who you felt could not fly out of a A/P failure situation?

                Yes, on more than one occasion unfortunately! You know, most of us became pilots because we love to fly! Not to push buttons.

                Comment


                • #53
                  From CNN...

                  http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/03/us/air...tsb/index.html


                  The NTSB is still investigating the incident and said this update contains no conclusions for what caused the near-miss.
                  Such incidents are incredibly rare, but can end in disaster. Runways and taxiways have specifically demarcated lighting to provide visual cues to pilots to avoid such incidents, but dangerous mix-ups do happen.
                  In 2009, a Delta Air Lines flight landed on a taxiway in Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson International Airport, and in 2015 an Alaska Airlines jet landed on one at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. No one was hurt in either incident.

                  Runway incidents at takeoff and landing still account for the largest portion of aviation accidents.

                  Nearly 47% of fatalities occur during final approach and landing, according to an analysis of accidents from 2006 to 2015 by Boeing. The newest generation of aircraft now include moving airport maps on their displays to alert the pilot of the aircraft's position relative to a runway or a taxiway.

                  Companies like Honeywell Aerospace have also developed systems to advise pilots on the ground and in the air if they're approaching a taxiway or a runway, but such equipment is an optional feature on many aircraft.


                  Well, that is a very simple answer to this problem.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Schwartz View Post
                    Companies like Honeywell Aerospace have also developed systems to advise pilots on the ground and in the air if they're approaching a taxiway or a runway, but such equipment is an optional feature on many aircraft.

                    Well, that is a very simple answer to this problem.
                    Indeed. And it should be acheivable through software alone. Thus it wouldn't be unreasonable to make this upgrade mandatory on modern jets.

                    Originally posted by BoeingBobby
                    You know, most of us became pilots because we love to fly! Not to push buttons.
                    No doubt. But commercial aviation wasn't invented to please pilots, and 'pushbutton aviation' was deemed safer and more efficient for everyone else involved.

                    Consider this:

                    Originally posted by Schwartz
                    Nearly 47% of fatalities occur during final approach and landing, according to an analysis of accidents from 2006 to 2015 by Boeing.
                    That's the realm of hand-flying, the realm of human error. The more ubiquitous and capable autoland becomes, the more that figure is going to drop.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Razz level: Low
                      Deep question level: High

                      Originally posted by Evan View Post
                      ***And, come on, they ARE ALL trained to hand fly***
                      ...and although it's not certified for such, I have flown an autopilot-equipped 172 and was told that the thing could do an ILS right down to the ground (flare optional and the nose wheel is probably already pranged and wobbly).

                      BUT...I grabbed your snip, because of the cases where it seems that pilots know little of hand flying (and the ongoing stories of puppy mills that train procedure to the detriment of fundamentals).

                      And yep, planes almost all have autoland- which is about the trickiest part, so yeah...just automate the whole deal and keep a romantic pilot there for the occasion when Windows blue-screens.

                      So what do you propose? The pilots do not ever touch the controls on a real plane, but every few months they get in a sim and shoot landings and all sorts of other cowboy activities in crosswinds and fog and etc???

                      Is sim practice good enough?

                      Does Bobby (and his many highly competent friends) who MAKE A POINT to do LOTS of hand flying actually INCREASE the risk as they get their all-important practice for when the computer hiccups?

                      Do we need better screening to weed out the cowboys...

                      OR

                      Do we need better screening to weed out the guys who can't hand land a 777 on a sunny evening with gentle winds...the guys who don't think twice of relentless pull ups...the guys who don't think to click off the ILS and simply go-around by hand (and deal with trim issues while doing so)? (Yeah, those guys were trained, but what happened?)
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        I have flown an autopilot-equipped 172 and was told that the thing could do an ILS right down to the ground.

                        You have to be shitting me, they have auto-land in 172's now?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Have to dissect this one..

                          Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                          Do we need better screening to weed out the guys who can't hand land a 777 on a sunny evening with gentle winds...
                          ...who can't land a 777 for what reason? Obviously you can't weed out those who lack the skills to fly the 777 BEFORE you begin teaching them those skills. But you CAN weed out the one's who lack aptitude, concentration, discipline, prudence and intellect in the first place. So that would be step one.

                          Step two: weed out the things that erode a culture, like pilot gradient and favoritism towards gonzo ex-military pilots (because I believe we are talking about Asiana here). And weed out the idea that big hours on a different type qualifies them for something they don't have the training for.

                          Step three: weed out the ones who have impeccable hand-flying skills but don't have the time-of-day to bother learning about systems. ("My airplane... Ok, what's it doing now?!" "Uh... captain, you have to pull the knob. You're pushing it.")

                          the guys who don't think twice of relentless pull ups...
                          You mean because they're started, stunned, and bereft of situational awareness, because the airplane is doing something other than what they expected? Weed out human nature then?

                          the guys who don't think to click off the ILS and simply go-around by hand (and deal with trim issues while doing so)?
                          Aha! Weed out the guys who didn't understand how the automation worked, and when it doesn't work at all, you mean?

                          (Yeah, those guys were trained, but what happened?)
                          Were they? They were taught fundamentals from day one, yes, but were they taught type-specifics? Systems and procedures?

                          That unfortunate Asiana Capt wasn't, I can tell you that. Renslow wasn't. The stooge who pranged AirAsia wasn't. The Air France F/O apparently had no idea.

                          --------------------

                          I really think it comes down to this: inputs and expectations.

                          When you fly a DC-3, you make a flight control input and the result more-or-less matches your expectations. That is called experienced, skilled flying.

                          When you fly a 777 and (albiet unwisely) select an open-descent mode to quickly get back on the glidepath after passing the FAF, and your expectation is that the thrust will be pegged at idle and the plane will fly itself into the ground unless you intervene, and so you are prepared to intervene long before that happens, that is called experienced, skilled flying.

                          When you expect the yoke or the rudder pedals or the autothrottle to do something it isn't going to do, and are then thrown into confusion because of the chasm that suddenly opens up between your expectations and reality, that is the place that needs weeding.

                          We need solid, thorough training on fundamentals first, then solid, thorough training ON TYPE.

                          At least one of those isn't getting done across the board. And both are required before we can have safety up there.

                          (And, once we begin vigilantly enforcing this standard, I am completely ok with a pilot hand-flying down to minimums and back up to RVSM airspace again. But if we insist on resisting requirements for stronger (more costly) training regimens, I'm afraid pushbuttons are the only other solution.)

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                            You have to be shitting me, they have auto-land in 172's now?
                            Apologies...No, not exactly.

                            The instructor commented that if he were incapacitated, (but somehow able to set up the ILS on the autopilot), it would fly him right down to the runway with a fair chance of an "excellent" landing- touchdown = approximate 3-degree contact angle, nose gear first, ~400 fpm downward velocity.

                            (You do know the classification system of good, excellent, perfect, correct?)
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                              You have to be shitting me, they have auto-land in 172's now?
                              Every aircraft ever made has an autoland feature. All you have to do is stop using the whizz-bang wotsits and levers and sit back. Trust me, you WILL eventually land. Survivability ? Aaah, now that's a different kettle of fish.
                              If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Replies below:

                                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                Have to dissect this one..and 3BS has to FURTHER dissect it.

                                ...who can't land a 777 on a perfect evening for what reason? Yes, the Asiana bunch with pilots who stated they were scared to hand fly. I know it's presumptive to think I could do it, but damn, target airspeed, a yoke, some throttles, some PAPI's an ILS depiction, a big long runway, some MSFS time. I defer to Bobby for the ILS in mountains to minimums in complex controlled environments, (and in the complex automation) but a hand landing and maintaining decent airspeed on short final...

                                You mean because they're started, stunned, and bereft of situational awareness, because the airplane is doing something other than what they expected? Weed out human nature then? No, not human nature...the violation of the basic principle of fly the GD airplane. The relentless pull up is NOT OK. (and didn't you say they were once trained not to do that?)

                                Aha! Weed out the guys who didn't understand how the automation worked, and when it doesn't work at all, you mean? Again, NO! it's not that they MISUNDERSTOOD the automation...it's that automation INTSTEAD of flying the plane was their focus. (I know, you don't comprehend the difference).

                                Were they? They were taught fundamentals from day one, yes, but were they taught type-specifics? Systems and procedures? Very wrong...there's a thing called a type rating. I'm thinking they don't get that unless they can demonstrate some pretty solid comprehension of the aircraft's systems and procedures. Of course, 'type specific' somehow does not encompass basic fundamentals...Yeah, it could, yeah, it should, but the basic dictionary definition of "type specific" goes against "broadly applicable".

                                That unfortunate Asiana Capt wasn't, I can tell you that. Renslow wasn't. The stooge who pranged AirAsia wasn't. The Air France F/O apparently had no idea. I agree they lacked SOMETHING, but I restate above, that they didn't get type ratings in those aircraft without training, testing and demonstration of a chunk of knowledge...but I restate that "type specific" is 'in principle' the opposite of "broadly applicable"...and their failures were on some broadly-applicable stuff.
                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X