FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Well if it goes back to the first post, the two examples Sys gave were VERY poor.
Airline Crash Due to Crew Errors
- Thread starter syscom3
- Start date
Well if it goes back to the first post, the two examples Sys gave were VERY poor.
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Even if his answer is yes, there is not a civil aviation authority on the planet that would allow him to.
I'm wondering if the point get's lost in the argument. Everyone seems to be in violent agreement that UAS' are a reality today, in the near future and long-term. I'm just struggling with the point of this thread.
mkloby
Master Sergeant
I'd just like to add my 2 cents, as I fly an aircraft that is highly automated on a daily basis.
Automation is a good thing, and can significantly reduce pilot workload, but it has to be used correctly.
Syscom - it is no secret that human error plays a part in most mishaps. Human error plays a factor in approximately 80-85% of mishaps, if I recall correctly. There will still be human factors with a human operating a UAV, no doubt.
Also, you need to be VERY careful about designing aircraft that restrict the pilots freedom of action. Some automation is a great thing, but some can be very bad. You need to understand that aircraft systems often do not work as the engineers imagine. Parts fail in high performance aircraft all the time. It is not a perfect world. When aircraft systems are tied together to large extent through computers, software, data buses, etc., small part failures can have large consequences.
Automation is a good thing, and can significantly reduce pilot workload, but it has to be used correctly.
Syscom - it is no secret that human error plays a part in most mishaps. Human error plays a factor in approximately 80-85% of mishaps, if I recall correctly. There will still be human factors with a human operating a UAV, no doubt.
Also, you need to be VERY careful about designing aircraft that restrict the pilots freedom of action. Some automation is a great thing, but some can be very bad. You need to understand that aircraft systems often do not work as the engineers imagine. Parts fail in high performance aircraft all the time. It is not a perfect world. When aircraft systems are tied together to large extent through computers, software, data buses, etc., small part failures can have large consequences.
- Thread starter
- #24
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Yes.
- Thread starter
- #25
syscom3
Pacific Historian
And if the human element is reduced even further, then the number of human induced accidents goes even lower. And with current software and processors, theres nothing stopping a UAV or remotely piloted vehicle from being even safer, by preventing stupid things from happening in the first place.
MK, think about the human limitations on processing and correctly coming up with a solution when faced under extreme stress, multiple failures and you only have a few seconds to "fix" it, and if not successfull, you crash and die.
UAV's and computer controlled cockpits dont have those limitations, thus by default, they are safer.
Yes, Ive never doubted that. I also am a strong believer in testing in the real world, so when automation takes place, its not an ad hoc prototypical solution.
Also, you have to look at the accident statistics as a whole. If a completely automated system has a 1 in a million chance of complete failure, and we will lose an AC once every year .... but .... the automation feature means we have also prevented 3 or 4 crashes in the same time period, then things are safer.
- Thread starter
- #26
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Heres some simple code for you:
"Do not allow landing gear to be retracted untill altitude "X" is reached".
"Do not allow aircraft to enter a bank exceeding X degrees at Y airspeed so as to prevent stalling or exceed allowable gee loads".
"Do not allow AC to touchdown for landing if air speed exceeds Z MPH and runway length is too short".
Are you telling me this is complex?
BTW, the B2 and F16 are unstable aircraft to fly. Dont you suppose that the avionics is whats allowing the plane to fly to begin with?
- Thread starter
- #27
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Why is that? tell me why they are poor. In fact, they're textbook examples of human failure allowing an AC to crash.
And sorry, saying that modern crew flight procedures and discipline wont let that happen again is incorrect. As long as people are people, sooner or later cockpit discipline will become lax and flight procedures "over looked" from time to time.
Just like that Russian captain who let his kids fly his airbus. Who would have thought ......
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And a UAV operator can do the same thing while troubleshooting a problem. The L-1011 is texbook for training scenarios and would also apply to UAVs
And the same thing applies to any machinery. Add a computer to run it and you have rigidity in the decision making ability
Unrelated to this discussion....
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
And you cannot gain immediate positive climb, something desirable in jet aircraft
And now you're limiting the manevability of the aircraft
And how does the UAV determine runway length? What if you're operating on a dirt strip? If you have ice on the airvehicle you have to land at a higher than normal airspeed.
It's not but then you limit the capability of the unit. What I just described has to be determined by a human
They are, but the systems that allow those aircraft to fly are synthesized to allow human decision making in most of the flight envelope.
- Thread starter
- #30
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Here's another example where pilot error went to the extreme and cockpit automation would have prevented this from happening.
B-52 crash at Fairchild Air Force Base occurred on June 24, 1994, killing the four crew members of a United States Air Force (USAF) B-52 Stratofortress named Czar 52[1] during an airshow practice flight. In the crash, Bud Holland, who was the command pilot of the aircraft based at Fairchild Air Force Base, flew the aircraft beyond its operational limits and lost control. As a result, the aircraft stalled, hit the ground, and was destroyed.
1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here was complete failure of pilot dicipline and flight deck dicipline. And if the AC had a computer flying the plane in which prohibited or unsafe maneuvers were prevented from happening, then this would not have occurred. And if the computer is flying the plane, why should there be a pilot?
B-52 crash at Fairchild Air Force Base occurred on June 24, 1994, killing the four crew members of a United States Air Force (USAF) B-52 Stratofortress named Czar 52[1] during an airshow practice flight. In the crash, Bud Holland, who was the command pilot of the aircraft based at Fairchild Air Force Base, flew the aircraft beyond its operational limits and lost control. As a result, the aircraft stalled, hit the ground, and was destroyed.
1994 Fairchild Air Force Base B-52 crash - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here was complete failure of pilot dicipline and flight deck dicipline. And if the AC had a computer flying the plane in which prohibited or unsafe maneuvers were prevented from happening, then this would not have occurred. And if the computer is flying the plane, why should there be a pilot?
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Matt308
Glock Perfection
You stole my thunder Joe. I was gonna cite the A320 crash. To this day the flight control laws of the Airbus aircraft are subject to heated debate. Boeing has the exact opposite philosophy, "You wanna bend the airframe, that is the pilot's call... not the FCC". My quote... not Boeing's. 
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
You stole my thunder Joe. I was gonna cite the A320 crash. To this day the flight control laws of the Airbus aircraft are subject to heated debate. Boeing has the exact opposite philosophy, "You wanna bend the airframe, that is the pilot's call... not the FCC". My quote... not Boeing's.
Here's more on this - on that site there are a few guys slamming the submitter and he does seem to be "Boeing Biased."
AirDisaster.Com: Investigations: Air France 296
That fact that you actually believe that computers can do the job more safely than a human is very troublesome. You worry me...
syscom3 said:
No you are looking at this in black and white. There is a lot more to the picture than that.
Aircraft already fly themselves for the most part. Why are pilots needed? For when things go wrong. A computer can never replace a human in that area.
Do accidents happen because of Human area? Of course, but that does not make airline travel any less safe.
He obviously has never worked with government computer systems...
Sys that stuff is already built into onboard computers. That however does take the need away from a pilot.
I can do the same thing. Here is a perfect example of human error.
Mother Drives Car Into Apartment Building - cbs2.com
Who cares, my point?. You are doing nothing but grabbing for air here, and millions of people still drive cars...
I think everyone agrees and is well aware that automation in aircraft is a good thing. It really does help the pilot by taking some of the work load. In the end though fact is fact and something sys fails to realize is that you can not completely replace a human in the cockpit (at least not at this time).
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Yes I am. Integrated Flight Control Computers with airframe flight limitations is a very significant engineering problem. Now your last example couples not only flight control algorithms, but also introduces dynamic modifications based upon aeronautical information service (AIS) parameters. These AIS parameters are are identified in ICAO Annex 11, but are in no way standardized for civil aerodromes (airports). You have yet again made an engineering oversimplification that your "flowchart" you are working would say...
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
Matt308
Glock Perfection
Phhhttt... more facts to get into the way of a good argument.
FLYBOYJ
"THE GREAT GAZOO"
- Thread starter
- #40
syscom3
Pacific Historian
Flyboy, explain this one .... Perris Valley Airport. 1984. Drunk pilot crashed into a DC3. I missed this crash by an hour, and had just jumped out of the DC3. Pilot error all the way. An automated cockpit wouldn't have allowed this to happen. Drunk pilots is an issue automated cockpits dont have to deal with. All the laws on the books didnt stop this pilot from some serious lapses in judgement.
So I take it you dont have an answer to pilots committing lapses in judgment? What about cockpit discipline and prcedure's? I suppose the pilot knew all about those and violated them anyways. Automated cockpits dont have these issues. They're not influenced by human frailties.
As for the A320 crash .... excellent point. And it obviously shows that thourough testing must be done to prevent errors like this from happening. But then ...... if this type of accident only happens once per decade, and the flight computers have prevented several crashes before then, then again, things are safer.
Flyboy, as for your comment about decision charts .... I am not trying to insult your intelligence, but these charts are used extensively in flight manuals and as the basis for automated flight controls, and have been for decades. So I apologize if I misread your statement or you were not clear in what youre saying.
Deradler ..
I am pointing out that some pilot errors are just so stupid, they are or can be preventable by the on board avioncs. There is nothing complicated for a autopilot to refuse to retract the landing gear if they're still on the ground, or refuse to shutdown an engine on takeoff if there is no detectable problems, nor prevent a pilot from putting the AC into a maneuver where it will fail catastrophically or go out of control.
So I take it you dont have an answer to pilots committing lapses in judgment? What about cockpit discipline and prcedure's? I suppose the pilot knew all about those and violated them anyways. Automated cockpits dont have these issues. They're not influenced by human frailties.
As for the A320 crash .... excellent point. And it obviously shows that thourough testing must be done to prevent errors like this from happening. But then ...... if this type of accident only happens once per decade, and the flight computers have prevented several crashes before then, then again, things are safer.
Flyboy, as for your comment about decision charts .... I am not trying to insult your intelligence, but these charts are used extensively in flight manuals and as the basis for automated flight controls, and have been for decades. So I apologize if I misread your statement or you were not clear in what youre saying.
Deradler ..
I am pointing out that some pilot errors are just so stupid, they are or can be preventable by the on board avioncs. There is nothing complicated for a autopilot to refuse to retract the landing gear if they're still on the ground, or refuse to shutdown an engine on takeoff if there is no detectable problems, nor prevent a pilot from putting the AC into a maneuver where it will fail catastrophically or go out of control.
