tick tock tipms topms

[3WE]

I don't follow you. What kind of math error do you have in mind? For example?

Don't got over nit-picky black and white.

On rare occasions, we are taking out lights and walls and stuff. This comes from errors. Math errors, or brain farts, or bad data supply, whatever- the crews try to take off with inadequate power.

So, the same error, brain fart or bad data goes into your TOPMS system...OK...Maybe I have a brain fart…The TOPS will note that the plane is not speeding up like it should.

[Gabriel]

The more I think about this- I am not sure how to get around a math error (yeah, sure, make auto weighing/auto everything, since MCAS works so awesome).

Double check all you want, but if a math error is made, the TOPMS is going to be telling you that a not_OK takeoff is fine.

And any human double-checking thing is going to be affected by the same math error.

I don't follow you. What kind of math error do you have in mind? For example?

[3WE]

The more I think about this- I am not sure how to get around a math error (yeah, sure, make auto weighing/auto everything, since MCAS works so awesome).

Double check all you want, but if a math error is made, the TOPMS is going to be telling you that a not_OK takeoff is fine.

And any human double-checking thing is going to be affected by the same math error.

[Evan]

First of all, no we don't. You need to compare the actual acceleration with the acceleration used internally to compute the take-off performance.
Second, you can have the plane weight itself without adding any hardware. The FADEC knows the thrust the engines are producing given the engine parameters and environmental factors like static pressure and temperature. In the beginning of the take-off roll, where drag is negligible, thrust/acceleration=mass.

I'm sorry, I meant we also need planes to weigh themselves to prevent (or at least flag) these data entry errors, not that we need them to do that in order for TOPMS to work.

The mass calculation method is interesting. If it works it could extend that function to antique airframes like the 737.

[Gabriel]

If we are going to use technological solutions, we also need planes to weigh themselves and enter that data automatically (or at least the flag a conflicting pilot entry).

First of all, no we don't. You need to compare the actual acceleration with the acceleration used internally to compute the take-off performance.
Second, you can have the plane weight itself without adding any hardware. The FADEC knows the thrust the engines are producing given the engine parameters and environmental factors like static pressure and temperature. In the beginning of the take-off roll, where drag is negligible, thrust/acceleration=mass.

[ATLcrew]

If we are going to use technological solutions, we also need planes to weigh themselves and enter that data automatically (or at least the flag a conflicting pilot entry).

A320 family does that. At least the ones we have do.

[Evan]

The clock is still ticking: tic, toc, tipms, topms. It is a matter of time until we have the NEXT deaths.

If we are going to use technological solutions, we also need planes to weigh themselves and enter that data automatically (or at least the flag a conflicting pilot entry).

[Gabriel]

The clock is still ticking: tic, toc, tipms, topms. It is a matter of time until we have the NEXT deaths.

http://avherald.com/h?article=4cb53df5&opt=0

[3WE]

Let me know when you spot the irony there.

Indeed, one little fat finger f-up on your beloved touch screen airplane and the plane may do wrong.

Cue the fundamental that you almost always have your hands by a 'direct' control.

[Evan]

5a. I object to absolute statements
5b. ESEPECIALLY when YOUR way is the ONLY way to fix human factors.

Let me know when you spot the irony there.

[BoeingBobby]

Relevance?

None at all, frustration...

[ATLcrew]

And you were how old when Palm 90 happened? I knew and used to fly DC-3's with the Captain of that flight, and had just come back from a trip to South America in the 707 the same day.

Relevance?

[3WE]

F.A.O.: Gabe

I feel the need to apologize for the NEAR TOTAL HIJACKING of the thread.

So much for your 'incident of the month' of someone messing up and making a long takeoff, when a smartphone app (or an ATL BB old-school-non-electronic speed-distance check) might be able to give them a valid, reasonably fail safe, reasonably early warning that acceleration was amiss.

[3WE]

1. You and 3WE keep asking why pilots would fail to do something fundamental (or do the opposite) and the answer is writ large in so many accident reports.
2. The human mind is complex and not designed to fly...
3. That is why we need to...train procedures that seem unwarranted.
4. We can train pilots better, to react under stress more reliably
5. The only way to improve on that reality is to add more layers of defense against that human factor.

...

1. No, I keep expressing questions about what they ARE trained.
2. Flying is complex.
3. Yeah, let's train for unwarranted procedures.
4. More training...
(and more and more and more- keep piling it on Evan. You don't think training has been being adjusted for 35 years? So, if we add YOUR trainings, then Me and Gabe will not_have to ask why folks violate huge, valid fundamentals? (You think maybe some reminders of fundamentals might be a reasonable part of all that new training you want?)
5a. I object to absolute statements
5b. ESEPECIALLY when YOUR way is the ONLY way to fix human factors.
5c. A reminder that Boeing Bobby and a number of his coworkers are scoffing at us- because, remember the insiders (not to be confused with we outsiders (which YOU used quite liberally by the way)) are working pretty damn hard and spending careers trying to be trained and competent. Yeah, I think we have the right to ask why fundamental stuff is seemingly botched since we are usually killed along with the crew. But, I'll stop short of such bold proclamations of how pilots are trained in such a crappy manner, and instead scrutinize your training programs.

[Evan]

BB, I am sure the crew did the best they could, which doesn't mean that it could not have been done better.

Actually, that IS what 'did their best' means. But whatever, humans will fail on fundamentals under stress and time compression. We should all have learned that by now. You and 3WE keep asking why pilots would fail to do something fundamental (or do the opposite) and the answer is writ large in so many accident reports. The human mind is complex and not designed to fly. That is why we need to create as much redundancy as possible and train procedures that seem unwarranted. Pilots might fail to do this but then don't fail to do that and so they can still recover in time. We can train pilots better, to react under stress more reliably, but we will never eliminate the human factor and for every close call we never hear about, there will be a rare tragic exception that makes the news. The only way to improve on that reality is to add more layers of defense against that human factor.

The human factors that work against us: shock, confusion, disorientation, reality conflicting with expectation and confirmation bias.

The human factors that works against us taking stronger steps against human factors: denial, arrogance, indifference, greed.