For the younger guys
10-15-2019, 09:11 AM
#41
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,091
Originally Posted by Bigapplepilot
And all soccer games are lost because of goalie error. Should we get rid of the goalie?
When human factors prevents an incident, like it does multiple times per day, these aren’t included in the statistics.
Saying we can reduce the astronomically low accident rate to zero, without taking into account the accidents that are prevented by humans, misses the mark by a very wide margin.
When human factors prevents an incident, like it does multiple times per day, these aren’t included in the statistics.
Saying we can reduce the astronomically low accident rate to zero, without taking into account the accidents that are prevented by humans, misses the mark by a very wide margin.
At this point it's not about accidents but reducing incidents as well.
So what incidents are human factors preventing? Most of them are incidents that were caused by humans in the first place (ie the stall example).
I'm not sure where you work but my place does a pretty good job of summarizing high profile events and sending out newsletters about them. It's eye opening.
10-15-2019, 10:04 AM
#42
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by Name User
The industry suggestion is we need an automated goalie. Their save rate, properly designed, should be 100%. The human goalie would exist only in the event of a total system failure shutting the automation down.
At this point it's not about accidents but reducing incidents as well.
So what incidents are human factors preventing? Most of them are incidents that were caused by humans in the first place (ie the stall example).
I'm not sure where you work but my place does a pretty good job of summarizing high profile events and sending out newsletters about them. It's eye opening.
At this point it's not about accidents but reducing incidents as well.
So what incidents are human factors preventing? Most of them are incidents that were caused by humans in the first place (ie the stall example).
I'm not sure where you work but my place does a pretty good job of summarizing high profile events and sending out newsletters about them. It's eye opening.
My point is high profile events are prevented on a daily basis by humans operating in the system. Since they don’t happen, they don’t make the newsletters.
Do you do a walk around before flight? Why do you do them? To prevent a both high and not so high profile event from entering the newsletter.
Do you conduct a contamination check on your aircraft during icing conditions? Why do you do that? To prevent a high profile event from entering the newsletter.
Do you have medlink procedures that handle a sick passenger or crew member so that hopefully you can avoid a situation in which a passenger’s health gets worse?
Do you keep an eye out of the window to scan for traffic(like a GA aircraft not using a transponder or a yahoo operating a drone at 2000 on final)? Why? So hopefully you don’t have an high profile event that makes the newsletters.
Most of these things aren’t a ‘software’ issue, and I don’t see them being solved with software. Other things too. The landing gear being lowered manually, or fighting on onboard fire. Or directing passengers on the how, when and where on an evacuation. Or the myriad of legal issues and a communication with various departments that a captain has to do before and during a flight(dispatch, maintenance, gate agent, etc). The list goes on and on.
Again, the events that were prevented don’t usually make the newsletters.
10-15-2019, 10:06 AM
#43
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by Name User
Honestly not sure it wasn't specified, but to me a stick shaker in a jet is a stall. It might as well be the same.
FAA statistic quoted during my EET training
FAA statistic quoted during my EET training
10-15-2019, 10:13 AM
#44
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by Name User
So your argument was that Boeing screwed up implementing MCAS. Which they did obviously.
But WHY was MCAS installed in the first place? Because humans stall airplanes...
We are obviously nowhere near aircraft thinking for themselves and making decisions. That is Skynet stuff. But cockpits in use today have been designed for human input - flap levers, gear handles, switch lights and push buttons.
No, I don't think the entire worldwide fleet will be gone in five years. But Airbus has stated they already have the tech and equipment now. The only thing holding them back are regulators.
Unfortunately for us flying an airplane is no longer the domain of skilled aviators. With the adaption of computer assisted controls and limits, manufacturers can make "flying" a plane as simple as pressing a button to takeoff, and one to land.
What remains is how well it can improvise in the advent of an emergency or failure. Which do happen on occasion. I think there will be seemingly little progress on single pilot and then bam out of nowhere we'll see it hit.
Countries that are more open to this stuff are already gearing up to use Cessna Caravan sized drones to operate cargo flights. Completely autonomously.
But WHY was MCAS installed in the first place? Because humans stall airplanes...
We are obviously nowhere near aircraft thinking for themselves and making decisions. That is Skynet stuff. But cockpits in use today have been designed for human input - flap levers, gear handles, switch lights and push buttons.
No, I don't think the entire worldwide fleet will be gone in five years. But Airbus has stated they already have the tech and equipment now. The only thing holding them back are regulators.
Unfortunately for us flying an airplane is no longer the domain of skilled aviators. With the adaption of computer assisted controls and limits, manufacturers can make "flying" a plane as simple as pressing a button to takeoff, and one to land.
What remains is how well it can improvise in the advent of an emergency or failure. Which do happen on occasion. I think there will be seemingly little progress on single pilot and then bam out of nowhere we'll see it hit.
Countries that are more open to this stuff are already gearing up to use Cessna Caravan sized drones to operate cargo flights. Completely autonomously.
However, Airbus Chief Test Pilot, who retired last year, who might have a little more insight on this, said this...
‘He personally believes the A350-1000 today is technologically capable of single-pilot operation – “but that’s a long way away. It’s not a question of pilot workload, but that the second pilot is there to monitor the first and be a safety backup.” These are issues that technology alone will not resolve.’
Full article...
https://aviationweek.com/farnborough...ot-retire-high
10-15-2019, 11:15 AM
#45
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,091
Originally Posted by Bigapplepilot
I work at a 121 Operator based in NYC. Complete with newsletters.
My point is high profile events are prevented on a daily basis by humans operating in the system. Since they don’t happen, they don’t make the newsletters.
Do you do a walk around before flight? Why do you do them? To prevent a both high and not so high profile event from entering the newsletter.
My point is high profile events are prevented on a daily basis by humans operating in the system. Since they don’t happen, they don’t make the newsletters.
Do you do a walk around before flight? Why do you do them? To prevent a both high and not so high profile event from entering the newsletter.
Do you conduct a contamination check on your aircraft during icing conditions? Why do you do that? To prevent a high profile event from entering the newsletter.
Do you have medlink procedures that handle a sick passenger or crew member so that hopefully you can avoid a situation in which a passenger’s health gets worse?
Do you keep an eye out of the window to scan for traffic(like a GA aircraft not using a transponder or a yahoo operating a drone at 2000 on final)? Why? So hopefully you don’t have an high profile event that makes the newsletters.
Studies have shown the probability of detecting a drone on final at under 10%. Depending on how the Iris testing goes and UAS growth, I can actually see a system like that being installed to supplement the ADSB/TCAS system.
Most of these things aren’t a ‘software’ issue, and I don’t see them being solved with software. Other things too. The landing gear being lowered manually,
or fighting on onboard fire
Or directing passengers on the how, when and where on an evacuation
. Or the myriad of legal issues and a communication with various departments that a captain has to do before and during a flight(dispatch, maintenance, gate agent, etc). The list goes on and on.
10-15-2019, 02:40 PM
#48
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Mar 2014
Posts: 3,091
Originally Posted by threeighteen
It's about as OK to get to a stick shaker in a jet as it is to call a stick shaker a stall and say that one happens every day.
The FAA didn't break it down. All they said was "stalled". To me that means stalled, to them it may have meant stick shaker, either way it's totally moot because there is zero reason for either event to happen (and potential subsequent consequences), yet you are arguing about the difference between the two.
10-15-2019, 02:58 PM
#49
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by Name User
That can be done by mx personnel, and arguably better and more through.
Much better done if there were cameras that looked down at the wing. I can't really see much on the ground. I can't even see the wing from the cockpit.
Here, often the Capts first indication of a gravely sick pax is an ACARS from dispatch telling them to divert and amending the release. Pilots are actually discouraged from making the decision.
The human eye is horrible at see and avoid. There are inexpensive camera/software combos today that are being implemented now.
Studies have shown the probability of detecting a drone on final at under 10%. Depending on how the Iris testing goes and UAS growth, I can actually see a system like that being installed to supplement the ADSB/TCAS system.
Only because aircraft have been built to be operated by humans
Is that something only a pilot is trained to do?
Our FAs are trained to initiate an evacuation if needed.
But you don't need a pilot on board for that. You really don't need a pilot at all, just a trained "flight coordinator" that can be assigned to a particular flight. And then move on to the next after it pushes.
Much better done if there were cameras that looked down at the wing. I can't really see much on the ground. I can't even see the wing from the cockpit.
Here, often the Capts first indication of a gravely sick pax is an ACARS from dispatch telling them to divert and amending the release. Pilots are actually discouraged from making the decision.
The human eye is horrible at see and avoid. There are inexpensive camera/software combos today that are being implemented now.
Studies have shown the probability of detecting a drone on final at under 10%. Depending on how the Iris testing goes and UAS growth, I can actually see a system like that being installed to supplement the ADSB/TCAS system.
Only because aircraft have been built to be operated by humans
Is that something only a pilot is trained to do?
Our FAs are trained to initiate an evacuation if needed.
But you don't need a pilot on board for that. You really don't need a pilot at all, just a trained "flight coordinator" that can be assigned to a particular flight. And then move on to the next after it pushes.
We can go back and forth, but you know what? Your addressed this thread ‘for the younger guys.’ But in reality, AI will grow exponentially and affect every job. Even Software Engineers, according to Elon Musk.
‘Least vulnerable to that job disruption will be individuals who can program AI software, Musk noted, recommending young people go on to study engineering.
But, even then, he said, “eventually the AI will just write its own software.”’
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/08/29/elon...tudy-this.html
Last edited by Bigapplepilot; 10-15-2019 at 03:18 PM.
10-15-2019, 03:04 PM
#50
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Oct 2012
Posts: 128
Originally Posted by Name User
Oh so that makes it OK to get a shaker in a 121 jet then.
I don't think you'd find many that agree with you.
I don't think you'd find many that agree with you.
Last edited by Bigapplepilot; 10-15-2019 at 03:19 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
