Airline Crash Due to Crew Errors

[FLYBOYJ]

As far as more "computers" in aircraft, in terms of a GA bird, look at the Cirrus SR-22, it seems like one crashes each month. There have also been some real foul ups because of the ballistic chute. Things that should have made the plane safer are actually make it more dangerous.

 

[evangilder]

I sometimes think the safer you make an airplane, the dumber the things that people do in them. Saying an airplane is uncrashable or completely safe though is dangerous thinking. I seem to recall a certain ship that was declared unsinkable...

 

[gumbyk]

American Airlines Flight 96 in 1972 is probably the greatest feat of civilian flying and that is something a computer will never do...have the will to survive.

Also, the UAL flight 232, in Sioux City is right up there, not a perfect outcome, but far better than most would think, given the circumstances.

From what I've heard, pilots in a simulator couldn't reproduce the outcome... There's something to be said for having your ass on the line.


I'm with Eric, more automation hasn't made cars any safer, why would it make aircraft safer? It just seems to make people stop thinking when operating them.

 

[Kiwikid]

Hmm please don't anybody Mention Turkish Airlines FLT 1459 at Schipol.

Radio Altimeters gave false height signals and the autopilot commanded the throttles to close at an altitude of 400ft. What the Dutch aviation safety Board did not disclose was that they had kept secret 14 similar instances of false signals to radio altimeters on KLM flights causing premature shut downs on approach. The Dutch do not want anyone questioning electromagnetic interference with flights.

I have a few hours on the Boeing 738. Autopilots and Autothrottles are sure fun labour saving devices in the cockpit but give me a real pilot in the cockpit any day.

Cough Cough... please don't mention Colgan Air FLT 3047 okay ?

 

[syscom3]

Also, the UAL flight 232, in Sioux City is right up there, not a perfect outcome, but far better than most would think, given the circumstances.

From what I've heard, pilots in a simulator couldn't reproduce the outcome... There's something to be said for having your ass on the line.


I'm with Eric, more automation hasn't made cars any safer, why would it make aircraft safer? It just seems to make people stop thinking when operating them.

Automation prevents stupid errors from being performed in the first place.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Automation prevents stupid errors from being performed in the first place.

Great - can you explain in what part of the normal flight profile you're talking about? The SR22 has all kinds of "automation" and yet people a slamming them into the ground at record rates - why is that?

 

[syscom3]

Great - can you explain in what part of the normal flight profile you're talking about? The SR22 has all kinds of "automation" and yet people a slamming them into the ground at record rates - why is that?

If its pilot induced error, then its preventable.

 

[syscom3]

Hmm please don't anybody Mention Turkish Airlines FLT 1459 at Schipol.

Radio Altimeters gave false height signals and the autopilot commanded the throttles to close at an altitude of 400ft. What the Dutch aviation safety Board did not disclose was that they had kept secret 14 similar instances of false signals to radio altimeters on KLM flights causing premature shut downs on approach. The Dutch do not want anyone questioning electromagnetic interference with flights.

Link please to the summation for the cause of the crash?

And if its true what youre saying, why is it only happening at this airport?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If its pilot induced error, then its preventable.

But this "automated" equipment has to be operated!!!! It boils down learning how to operate it or use somethng simplier, and in GA aircraft it doesn't get any simpler or safer than a well trained pilot.

 

[Matt308]

If its pilot induced error, then its preventable.

Why do you always assume that more automation (system engineering) is inherently more safe than humans? And for what operational scenarios?

They both are inherently covered under the "system engineering" mantra. If system engineering (i.e. proper specification of high-to-lo level requirements, structural coverage, module testing, verification and validation testing, human factors, crew resource management principles, etc.) is so flawless, why don't we catch more accident/incident causal factors directly related to human machine interface shortcomings?

[I know, big words again. I'm sorry.]