Back to Squawk list
  • 7

Technology's Paradox

Enviado
 
The crash in February of a ­TransAsia ATR 72, which was captured in horrifying detail by dash-cam as the big twin turboprop clipped a road and broke apart, should be an eye-opener to us all. Automation, or rather pilots' inability to manage it or to fly without it proficiently, has become public enemy No. 1. It is without doubt the main culprit of airline crashes around the world. (www.flyingmag.com) Más...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]


bbabis
bbabis 2
Yes, it does seam that we have reached a changeover point in aviation. The stories of pilots heroically bringing crippled airplanes to safety are being replaced with stories of pilots taking perfectly good airplanes and bumbling them to catastrophe. During this time, planes have become much safer so it is obvious that pilots have changed for the worse. Blame it on technology? No doubt that is a factor but training is the root cause. An ab-initio training program can take almost anyone and teach them to fly a Boeing or Airbus to proficiency but many building blocks that usually support that knowledge are missing. I've flown with many pilots that cannot figure out a TOD for a crossing restriction in their head. If the FMS can't do it they can't do it. What else can't they do if the automation fails? Sitting in front of our computers with google, we are all geniuses. Turn the computer off, and we revert to our experience and knowledge level. Pilot training and recurrent programs have to get back to teaching some basics with automation failed.
jbqwik
jbqwik 1
A sub-context is that this type of training is even allowed. I'm thinking of the World Trade Center attack. Those terrorist were allowed to pass with the most basic of basics. That type of standard is a joke and never should be allowed. The schools just want the bucks, forget the common sense, morals and self-discipline.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well said.
preacher1
preacher1 1
While I was retired the first time, I had me a truck line. Most of the time, my calculator on my desk would work but I remember a time or 2 being away from my desk and picking up a phone call from a customer who was wanting a quote right then and I had to do it in my head or on a piece of paper. I really did like that calculator but I knew how to do it the other way.
30west
30west 1
Spot on.
s20609
s20609 1
My Facebook comments: TECHNICAL PARADOX? I consider the comparison of the above airline accidents misleading to Pilots & the GA community. Unless you include the appropriate issue that is relevant to your argument then I miss the point. I believe your generalization that Everyone knows the primary causes and contributing factors to ANY accident is a stretch. Using your examples:
AF447 is a loss of airspeed information contributing to Poor Airspeed Management Stall;
Colgan Air 3407 was poor airspeed management Stall Spin;
Asiana214 was Poor Airspeed Management Near Stall at landing;.
To say "Pilots Almost Never Make These Same Mistakes" is False. Humans make mistakes; Pilots are Human and the use of Technology like TAWS makes Pilots more aware when we make an Error. If TAWS was 100% effective then 2 ATP pilots in a 182 would not hit a mountain at night.
I agree that Continued, regular training is helpful to minimize accidents. For all pilots It is about; Awareness of our surrounding conditions, while Performing a complex task, during 'Unrelated to flight' (equipment, passenger, ATC, check list, etc...) distractions. It's a HUMAN PARADOX.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, this story is primarily about the ATR 72 crash. That said, training will come in here to hopefully bar any future mistakes. As BBABIS says here below, we were all taught to pull the throttle back before we did the actual shutdown. That simple step would have probably prevented this crash. Would more training have help there or would they have just went by it anyway. As you say, they were human.
s20609
s20609 1
Question to preacher1 & Babis: in your experiences, do the USA commercial carriers provide more complex or improved training over other carriers overseas? Or from an experience perspective perhaps some pilots are Better prepared to respond to unusual conditions rather than not act due to denial of the event. Sometimes not acting can be the correct action.
bbabis
bbabis 1
Sorry, I cannot directly answer your question either because my background is all part 91 training thru FlightSafety. I have no direct knowledge of US verses foreign carriers training programs. I have many friends and acquaintances flying for carriers that I speak with but someone with direct knowledge should answer your question in that area. Yes, to the second part of your question. Training helps all pilots but some are just better prepared to respond to unusual conditions by nature or upbringing. Not acting due to denial of the event is never the correct action except by dumb luck, which we all need. Not acting after carefully considering the facts can very well be the best action.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Can't really answer that myself as I have not been through any of their training classes. That said, not counting the Germanwings, starting with Asiana 214 a couple years ago, the Indonesian plane and then this Thai ATR; those are all Southeast Asian carriers. Now there is another Asiana at Hiroshima that landed short and there was no ILS on that runway. There is something lacking somewhere. Possibly in their haste to catch up, something was missed or left out? That is 4 fatal crashes in 2 years for the overseas carriers and 0 for U.S. We had had some incidents but no fatality accidents.
s20609
s20609 1
I Agree with your observations. Thanks
preacher1
preacher1 1
Actually, I made a slight mistake. This deal over at Hiroshima was not a fatality accident as far as I know, but you get the point.
bbabis
bbabis 1
The relevant issue in each example is that these aircraft were perfectly flyable and yet the pilots managed to crash them after autopilots, autothrottle, or other advanced technology systems failed or were mismanaged. The Paradox is that as technology makes planes safer, pilot's reliance on the technology is eroding basic skills required for manual flight. I'm not familiar with the 182 accident mentioned but if two ATP pilots were accustomed to a TAWS looking out for them and then operated an aircraft without it, they may have subconsciously handed the responsibility of terrain avoidance to a system that wasn't there. Yes, all these accidents were Human Mistakes but we are taking the discussion a step deeper and asking why an increase in these types of mistakes is happening.
jkudlick
Jeremy Kudlick 1
It's all about situational awareness. The automation may make the job easier, but if you are not aware of your situation...
preacher1
preacher1 1
While automation is a culprit, let us remember that in the Thai crash, that the pilots made a very simple, yet tragic mistake. Had they just feathered the bad engine as they were attempting to do, that plane would have done OK on one engine and we probably wouldn't be having this conversation. All of us have made mistakes before. This one just happened to be bad.
bbabis
bbabis 1
Very true that was a mistake but isn't the point of training to help alleviate mistakes? In their situation, both power levers would have been forward. I've always been taught to verify the failed engine by bringing the power lever back before taking the big step of shutting down or feathering an engine. I am not familiar with the ATR but the technology of rudder boost can play tricks with what engine has failed. Even more reason to go thru a verification step.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, me too, as I'm sure most of us have. There is a method to the madness. We weren't there but for whatever reason, the shut down the wrong one. I haven't flown an ATR in many years and best I remember that was an older 24. I don't know how the newer ones have changed, if at all.
jbqwik
jbqwik 1
gotta learn to walk before you put your feet up and use the autopilot. Our military instruction was scared me sick.. but kept me alive.
preacher1
preacher1 3
Cruise control is nice but you have to know how to drive to get to the Interstate.
jbqwik
jbqwik 1
preacher1
preacher1 1
I always had flew from about 10 grand in and out. Considering how things are going I'm gonna say that I was blessed in being able to do so. Some 121's are requiring the AP on at 1000' or less. Sad part is, pilots allow it and the technology is there to make it happen. That said, do you know what to do if your computer shoots craps, taking off, landing, or in the middle of your flight. You can talk about the cruise portion of the flight but I have had the AP just kick off in the middle of the flight. Can you drop out of RVSM and hand fly it on somewhere?
preacher1
preacher1 1
It does appear that these ATR pilots just screwed up and shut down the good engine. Just that much more reason to be on your game. Very simple thing killed those folks, themselves and totaled a fairly new plane.
jbqwik
jbqwik 1
see, thing is, these days too much emphasis put on procedures. Back in the day we were taught to fly the damn thing, and use technology for information only. When things went bad -and they do- you instinctively *flew* the damn plane.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Well, BACK IN THE DAY, things were a lot different. We grew up having to fly the thing. I remember the 707's with 3 men(which is where I started, as that 3rd man), and seeing the autopilot develop over the years. Not reliable was an understatement and even though they might be on in flight, most pilots would kinda pretend they weren't there, watching every move for the flight in case they kicked off suddenly, and they did.
jbqwik
jbqwik 2
Yes, that's my point. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for technology but we have become way to comfortable letting 'George' do the thinking.
bbabis
bbabis 1
That's a good line, "Letting George do the thinking." When a pilot hands off thinking to automation and doesn't understand how it thinks or what it's thinking about, bad things can happen.
preacher1
preacher1 1
There is a lot to be said for situational awareness. You can be sitting there all nice and comfortable with George flying and he just either suddenly quits or an upset comes along that you have to turn him off; Sometimes you don't have time to figure out where you are at and what your doing.
jbqwik
jbqwik 1
case in point: Take a look at the B-47 training video. How many pilots today you think could start a gas turbine manually? It's not hard at all, but you have to understand what the heck is going on. Today's pushbutton world takes understanding out of the equation. Gee, I'm full of vinegar today.. .
preacher1
preacher1 1
well, as that 3rd man on that 707, I don't need to watch that video. Us old farts have had the luxury of seeing this stuff evolve and how much easier they made things. Younger generation of pilots are just like my son. They listen to stories about the good old days and don't believe half of it, thinking how it couldn't have ever been that bad. In 10 years I rotated out of that 3rd seat, thru the right and then into the left seat. Then in 86, went into a 757. Talk about daylight and dark.
busheyrk
Richard Bushey 1
Preacher, is that the son who can fall asleep just about anywhere? BTW, always enjoy your posts. Look for them each Friday morning.
preacher1
preacher1 1
Same one but he's learning now that he's grown with 3 kids, all boys. LOL
jbqwik
jbqwik 1
Yes, I hear you, envious of that 757 ride. Sweet. I'm mostly vfr, but, as retired ATcontroller and also jet mechanic I very much appreciate the technical advances. I would *never* want to go back to pushing those plastic shrimp boats across the radar screen. But, when the computers went down, as they did in the early days, that's what we had to do and thank God I knew how to.
Oh well, I guess I should just let it go...
preacher1
preacher1 1
Never have had to do it but I had a friend that worked in MEM center. I was over there on his shift one nite and there was some kind of a problem that bought the boats out for a few minutes. It wasn't very long but it seemed that all knew how and nothing crashed. LOL.

Don't never let it go.

Entrar

¿No tienes cuenta? ¡Regístrate ahora (gratis) para acceder a prestaciones personalizadas, alertas de vuelos y mucho más!
¿Sabías que el rastreo de vuelos de FlightAware se sostiene gracias a los anuncios?
Puedes ayudarnos a que FlightAware siga siendo gratuito permitiendo que aparezcan los anuncios de FlightAware.com. Trabajamos arduamente para que nuestros anuncios sean discretos y de interés para el rubro a fin de crear una experiencia positiva. Es rápido y fácil whitelist ads en FlightAware o por favor considera acceder a nuestras cuentas premium.
Descartar