Originally Posted by Name User

The automation forbids flying the airplane into the ground in the same way you can't stall an Airbus.

Set an altitude below the EGPWS floor for that area and it stops. No matter what you do. "I can't let you do that, Dave".

And don't say shut the engines down. Without abnormal indications the computer won't let you do that, either.

Jeez you guys are so last century thinkers.

Think about how a drone works. You turn it on, without ever operating one. It knows where it is. You tell it to go to xyz, it takes off, flies, and returns and lands all on its own.

That is where we are headed. The technology exists. It works. The only thing stopping it is regulations.

How did that work out for the radio operator, navigator, or flight engineer?

Not to mention, if you think about it, your argument for having TWO pilots is because one might fly it into the ground.

IMO, that is a reason to have ZERO pilots. In the same line of thinking, since the vast majority of accidents these days are pilot error, that is also a reason to have ZERO pilots - it will improve safety.

Originally Posted by Name User

IMO, that is a reason to have ZERO pilots. In the same line of thinking, since the vast majority of accidents these days are pilot error, that is also a reason to have ZERO pilots - it will improve safety.

Originally Posted by symbian simian

AF447 crashed because the pitot tubes iced over. Yes, the pilots didn't help, but we aren't even close to having a certified system that would have done better. I would think that for every crash due to pilot error there is numerous crashes prevented because of pilot input you won't hear anything about because "nothing happened". Automation certainly improves safety for things like autoland, but lets not get ahead of ourselves here, they haven't been able to automate one dimensional travel (train), how the H do you think they will be able to automate 3 dimensional travel.

Originally Posted by OldWeasel

Ok, you need to qualify that pilot error statement. The recent occurrences of pilot error I’m aware of in the 121 world have been outside the US frustrated by cultural and CRM failures. So which accidents are you speaking of?

The thing is, before I flew, I fixed. For many years. Legacy systems and glass...this century glass. Plenty of errors were due to incorrect sensor inputs. The best computer is still only as good as it’s input. I’m just not a believer. Too much experience with automation to trust it with my life or anyone else’s.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Name User

You can get summaries of potentially fatal "events" during recurrent training. Or through ASAP debrief summary reports. I don't want to go into too much detail due to media. Quite frankly it's a miracle there hasn't been a fatal accident in the last 10 years. You can thank automation for that.

Originally Posted by Name User

You can get summaries of potentially fatal "events" during recurrent training. Or through ASAP debrief summary reports. I don't want to go into too much detail due to media. Quite frankly it's a miracle there hasn't been a fatal accident in the last 10 years. You can thank automation for that.

Originally Posted by Name User

The only reason trains are still operated by humans is because of...drum roll...regulation! The feds won't release the RRs from their version of the FARs.

Lots of near crashes as well. All pilot error induced. Yeah, the pilot prevented it, but that is like saying you prevented a car wreck by swerving out of oncoming traffic...after falling asleep.

Originally Posted by trip

I think it has to do with safety as well. A train can't block a city/town/highway in the event of emergency or other type situation where first responders need access. It still takes people on the scene to stop the train, set brakes, and break the train into sections that will open up roads allowing access/egress.

Originally Posted by OldWeasel

Why would I be interested in what happened in recurrent? If it happened then great! Mission accomplished. I can’t count the number of times aircrews “squawked” a system and we returned it to them NDF (no discrepancy found). Those squawks keep coming back. Technicians may need to change a motor. The ivory tower at this time might put that off. Will those in the front office accept a plane that says “I’m not flying until this motor is changed Dave”? I don’t think so. It can be challenging to get a motor changed even during a scheduled maintenance.

It’s really not all about the aircrew. If you’re truly a big picture thinker, maintenance and logistics are included in the cost of operations. I’ve only heard about pilot salaries and revenue per mile.

BTW quoting 2001: A Space Odyssey was mildly disturbing. It brings to mind Terminator and I Robot.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Bluesideup1

You mean the kind of automation that just crashed a perfectly good Lion Air 737 into the water?