Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

More interesting ineractions between automation and humans for safety of trasnport

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by elaw View Post
    I suspect your definition of "well trained" and mine aren't all that different. The difference lies in the expected outcome.

    My feeling is that untrained individuals will frequently perform poorly at any given task. When training is added, and more training is added, the frequency of performing poorly drops, and approaches but never actually reaches zero. There are always other factors like fatigue, miscommunication, and whatever you want to call the condition of being half-asleep as a result of sitting in a seat doing pretty much nothing for hours, that will sometimes cause humans to perform poorly no matter how well they've been trained.
    But we are talking about core concepts here. When a pilot selects an autopilot mode, it is chosen with a strategy in mind. This mode does this. That mode does that. It's like if a chess player tried to use a bishop to move sideways instead of diagonally. I've seen a lot of fatigued chess players make obvious errors, but I've never seen one forget the concepts of which piece does what. If he did, I would hesitate to call him well-trained.


    Originally posted by elaw View Post
    The fact that you seemingly want to blame every pilot-error accident on poor training creates the appearance you think that sufficient training can produce people who perform correctly 100.000000% of the time. That's what I disagree with.
    Whoa there, once again the word fact is thrown in recklessly. I never said any such thing. In fact I'm the one always emphasizing the humbling effects of human factors. I am aware, however, that training is the best defense against them.

    3WE wants to believe that the SFO Asiana crash was the result of too much baffling technology. It was the result of inadequate training on very understandable automation.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Evan View Post
      3WE wants to believe that the SFO Asiana crash was the result of too much baffling technology. It was the result of inadequate training on very understandable automation.
      Not exactly, but just for the record, the inflatable dude in Airplane! is named "Otto"...as in "Otto Pilot". Maybe ride the bike down to the grocery store and get Airplane! out of the Red Box. There may be hand sanitizer available inside the store if you need it.

      Your selective memory brushes over that Hui Theiu Lo expressed that he was scared of hand landing an airplane on a nice long runway on a beautiful afternoon with light winds- AND that always being aware of airspeed- ESPECIALLY on short final is important for Cessna 150s and Boeing 777s...Does the emphasis on automation have anything to do with that?
      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
        Your selective memory brushes over that Hui Theiu Lo expressed that he was scared of hand landing an airplane on a nice long runway on a beautiful afternoon with light winds- AND that always being aware of airspeed- ESPECIALLY on short final is important for Cessna 150s and Boeing 777s...Does the emphasis on automation have anything to do with that?
        Yes. He wasn't well-trained. Not to hand fly. Not to fly on automation. Not to follow the simplest cardinal rule of keeping a hand on the thrust levers on final and thus have full awareness of the autothrust behavior. Not to monitor the PFD annunciations. Certainly not on modal interactions. He was advised on airspeed. He just didn't think he had to do anything about it.

        But you started a thread on automation, so don't bring hand flying into it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Pst, Evan. It was you who said "3WE wants to believe that the SFO Asiana crash was the result of too much baffling technology".
          3WE is just explaining that that's not the case, that he believes that the Asiana crash was the result of too poor airmanship in general. And, for whatever is worth, I agree. No "and what is it doing now" can bit a "click click, clack clack".

          --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
          --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            But you started a thread on automation, so don't bring hand flying into it.
            Um, no the title of this thread is not as black and white as your mind (yet again) makes it.

            It is on the interaction of automation and fundamentals.

            Madam Uber driver was supposed to watch the road ahead and brake. Hui Theiu Lo was supposed to monitor airspeed...

            And for the umpteenth time- I have very few hours- and yet have been taught to watch airspeed on short final (regardless of type). And fact- Hui Theiu Lo had a huge shit pot of training on automation. I promise- I really doubt I could start a 777, nor program it's FMS. I guess I can go on MSFS and a Youtube or two, I might be able to turn on "Otto", but its too simplistic for you to simply say Hui Theiu Lo was poorly trained...

            And I actually agree- one thing, apparently lacking in his training is to watch your airspeed on short final and keep your hands on the power levels...Again- that's type specific for 150, 152, and 172M 172S and 172P models...not sure if it counts on a Triple 7 or Bobby's 74'.....

            It's difficult to reconcile that 3BS, with 100 hours, knows to watch your airspeed. Hui Thieu Lo...with thousands of hours, sim time, classroom and meh....Otto's watching my speed....
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              Um, no the title of this thread is not as black and white as your mind (yet again) makes it.

              It is on the interaction of automation and fundamentals.
              Yes. While using automation. Or is that still too black and white for you?

              Madam Uber driver was supposed to watch the road ahead and brake. Hui Theiu Lo was supposed to monitor airspeed...
              Indeed. Reread my post #6, where I say the same thing.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                Pst, Evan. It was you who said "3WE wants to believe that the SFO Asiana crash was the result of too much baffling technology".
                3WE is just explaining that that's not the case, that he believes that the Asiana crash was the result of too poor airmanship in general. And, for whatever is worth, I agree. No "and what is it doing now" can bit a "click click, clack clack".
                Read my post #3. Do you disagree with that?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Evan View Post
                  Read my post #3. Do you disagree with that?
                  Depends on how you define "all these systems".

                  And it is my impression (and I can be wrong) that pilot training make a lot of focus with procedures and when do what and what no to do when. But not so much in the why.
                  With that kind of training, you fundamental error mistake becomes more a procedural mistake.

                  So a pilot may be "well trained" by those standards but not be "well trained" in the sense you used it.

                  And YET, the pilot could have observed the engines at idle, the airspeed decaying, the pitch going up, not understand what the heck is going on, and performed the click-click-clack-clack maneuver and save the day.
                  As Mr Magenta said, you never ask what is it doing now. You take control, make it do what you want it to do, and then ask why was it doing that.
                  Of course, for that you first need to realize that it is not doing what you wanted it to do.

                  --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                  --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    Indeed. Reread my post #6, where I say the same thing.
                    Sometimes we do say similar things; however you want more training to regurgitate that cryptic acronym Otto pilot modes turn off the speed control.

                    Given that guys are forgetting that relentless pull ups are part of many stall procedures and forgetting that airspeed should be monitored on short final-and given that it's kinda universal stuff and therefore time efficient to teach/remind folks...maybe...just maybe interject a little of that into the acronym barfing exercises...
                    Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      hmm, not all of the mentioned innovations are such a great idea as I see it...

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by NikiMn View Post
                        hmm, not all of the mentioned innovations are such a great idea as I see it...
                        Wow...a smokin' hot avatar and great summarization skills. At you married?
                        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I don't think bots are allowed to get married... yet.
                          Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                          Eric Law

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by elaw View Post
                            I don't think bots are allowed to get married... yet.
                            The forum is functioning on autopilette?
                            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              The driver involved in the UBER crash was WATCHING TV at the time:

                              The police report suggests the safety operator was streaming The Voice just before a fatal collision.


                              Concentration when using automation that requires monitoring is problematic enough with trained airline pilots. It's NOT going to work with everyday drivers.

                              These things have to be banned until the automation can be trusted without human monitoring.


                              That means not only proven reliability to detect and react, but also FAA levels of redundancy, i.e. multiple CPUS and 'carvionics', multiple sensors and fail-operational capability.

                              That's not going to happen tomorrow...

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Evan View Post
                                It's NOT going to work with people who are functioning at the intellectual level of a turnip.
                                Corrected.
                                Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                                Eric Law

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X