ANOTHER board member for Qantas
....no crew would have been better!
Huh? In AF447 the automation failed first and then the pilots, perhaps through poor training & skills, failed to resolve the problems & ambiguities. I can't see how the failed automation could have saved itself!
I do agree though that the future will probably find the answers.
I do agree though that the future will probably find the answers.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,307
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Huh? In AF447 the automation failed first and then the pilots,
Wasn't it the captain who came from the cabin and eventually figured out what happening (albeit too late)?
Why do people get so hot and bothered about a simple debate?
I'd suggest if you can't remove your personal situation from play and remain objective, your judgement is clouded.
Getting back to the topic...
Suggestion: Replace airline management with computers
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: NZ
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The automation didn't fail on AF447, it responded as it was designed to do in an unreliable air data situation (it was designed knowing that there would be two pilots there to deal with this situation). The crew then forced the aircraft (manually) well outside of its flight envelope. If AF447 was a fully automated aircraft (which would obviously include automatic handling of a loss of air data situation), it would not have crashed. How is that not obvious?
That's all I'm saying on the matter - talk about frustrating!
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Europe
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Another management-employed troll... or someone who has no idea how often this automation fails? “
Of course, its always much easier to trot out the management troll accusation than actually think about the discussion.
How often does automation fail in your aircraft? What part of the automation are you talking about? What if the auto autopilot trips off in cruise, would a single pilot struggle to cope?
“Tell that to the family and friends of Air France 447 passengers/crew... and, possibly, MAS MH370”
You mean the ones that had TWO pilots in the cockpit. Didn’t work them at all did it?
Of course, its always much easier to trot out the management troll accusation than actually think about the discussion.
How often does automation fail in your aircraft? What part of the automation are you talking about? What if the auto autopilot trips off in cruise, would a single pilot struggle to cope?
“Tell that to the family and friends of Air France 447 passengers/crew... and, possibly, MAS MH370”
You mean the ones that had TWO pilots in the cockpit. Didn’t work them at all did it?
A slightly different perspective
Putting aside the discussion about the core relevancy of whether you need 'airline qualified' board members -those of us who have seen the obligations of Directors change markedly over the years.
There are a number of precedents around where Directors have claimed that they were misinformed when making pivotal decisions about a business and got it wrong. Simple answer, lack of due diligence is no defence.
In concert with the notion that it is a Board's responsibility to implement the shareholder's wishes (simplistic yes I agree) and thereby determine the best strategy, it is management's job to implement and manage the business
Quite a separation of responsibility really.
But applying the due diligence obligation, a Director cannot eschew the notion that they made a decision based on what management told them - they have to make their own independant inquiry as to the efficacy of the information. They rely on auditors for instance for financial assurance, BUT they need to be qualified sufficiently to understand the information (or get other independant advice again) to be able to apply it.
Hence Boards typically have Lawyers and Accountants and other professionals well represented to review and challenge if necessary the information provided by management. That is just a factor of modern business (and the Corporations Law).
Perhaps given the meteoric rise of Ms Worth the Board may have determined that they needed someone qualified to challenge the stuff she is passing up. Enter Mr Sampson.
Or am I ascribing too much competency to the Board about assessing their own knowledge risks!
There are a number of precedents around where Directors have claimed that they were misinformed when making pivotal decisions about a business and got it wrong. Simple answer, lack of due diligence is no defence.
In concert with the notion that it is a Board's responsibility to implement the shareholder's wishes (simplistic yes I agree) and thereby determine the best strategy, it is management's job to implement and manage the business
Quite a separation of responsibility really.
But applying the due diligence obligation, a Director cannot eschew the notion that they made a decision based on what management told them - they have to make their own independant inquiry as to the efficacy of the information. They rely on auditors for instance for financial assurance, BUT they need to be qualified sufficiently to understand the information (or get other independant advice again) to be able to apply it.
Hence Boards typically have Lawyers and Accountants and other professionals well represented to review and challenge if necessary the information provided by management. That is just a factor of modern business (and the Corporations Law).
Perhaps given the meteoric rise of Ms Worth the Board may have determined that they needed someone qualified to challenge the stuff she is passing up. Enter Mr Sampson.
Or am I ascribing too much competency to the Board about assessing their own knowledge risks!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suspect competence at board level is extremely limited as demonstrated by many years of bad decisions that have not been challenged and Execs going mostly unchallenged unless they disagree with CEO and then get booted out. This is an ideological club that alienates customers,staff and public at large.anyone invited into the tent will be expected to fall into line or be silent so don't expect any radical changes with any new appointments until there are major changes at the top.
Any short term share price gain is only illusionary and likely a result of selective briefings designed to prop up strategy.
The more it changes the more it stays the same.
Any short term share price gain is only illusionary and likely a result of selective briefings designed to prop up strategy.
The more it changes the more it stays the same.
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: here and there
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If AF447 was a fully automated aircraft (which would obviously include automatic handling of a loss of air data situation), it would not have crashed.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: NZ
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Possibly the most ignorant statement I have ever read. Anywhere.
You're telling me that if an aircraft was designed to do what pilots are supposed to do in this situation (maintain an appropriate attitude and thrust setting until air data can be restored) the outcome would not have been different? I'd really like to hear how someone who seems to think themselves less ignorant (or much less ignorant) than I comes up with that rationale!
I have to wonder if you've even thought about the point in question, or if you've just seen an argument coming from an angle you don't like and got your back up.
Nunc est bibendum
Automation would have dealt with QF72 how? It was the automation that had them pitching nose down toward the ground.
Automation would have assisted with the QF30 how? When the side blew out the aeroplane there were no autopilots left and multiple other issues.
When a 744 on descent into BKK lost all electrics in late 2007, early 2008, automation would have helped how exactly?
How would automation have dealt with the QF32?
Your blind belief in the benefits of automation is admirable but I can count 4 hull losses for Qantas within the last 7 years had it not been for pilots on board simply because the automation wasn't up to scratch. The way I see it, Pilots 4: Automation 0.... and that's just the serious issues. I've had automation decide not to follow the flight planned track requiring manual intervention. It took multiple resets of systems and some creative thinking to get it to do what it was supposed to do. I'm sure many of us can think if multiple examples where we've managed the lack of automation response. Sure, automation has also saved some of us from time to time which just goes to show that NO ONE SYSTEM IS PERFECT.
So how about we cease the pissing contest about how awesome automation is. Realise that it's goal is to assist us to do things that we can't do as well and clear our minds to manage things that the automation simply doesn't consider...... like what to do when the automation goes cactus.
Automation would have assisted with the QF30 how? When the side blew out the aeroplane there were no autopilots left and multiple other issues.
When a 744 on descent into BKK lost all electrics in late 2007, early 2008, automation would have helped how exactly?
How would automation have dealt with the QF32?
Your blind belief in the benefits of automation is admirable but I can count 4 hull losses for Qantas within the last 7 years had it not been for pilots on board simply because the automation wasn't up to scratch. The way I see it, Pilots 4: Automation 0.... and that's just the serious issues. I've had automation decide not to follow the flight planned track requiring manual intervention. It took multiple resets of systems and some creative thinking to get it to do what it was supposed to do. I'm sure many of us can think if multiple examples where we've managed the lack of automation response. Sure, automation has also saved some of us from time to time which just goes to show that NO ONE SYSTEM IS PERFECT.
So how about we cease the pissing contest about how awesome automation is. Realise that it's goal is to assist us to do things that we can't do as well and clear our minds to manage things that the automation simply doesn't consider...... like what to do when the automation goes cactus.
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: NZ
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure if that was aimed at me, Keg, but I've never said I'm in support of fully automated aircraft - in fact, I'm a Boeing rather than Airbus man given the choice, but that doesn't stop me weighing up the merits and trying to see the debate from all angles.
As I said in an earlier post, part of the automation argument is a balance of risks - how you weight your QF32s (aircraft saved by the pilots) against your AF447s (aircraft destroyed by the pilots).
The other issue frustrating me here is that many seem to be using the current state of the art in making a call, rather than understanding that for fully automated aircraft to exist, you'd have to have far greater redundancy within the automation, as you don't have pilots to fall back on.
I don't think we'll see fully automated aircraft or even single pilot airliners this century, but I'm very interested in making sure I understand the debate as like most on here, my future depends on it!
As I said in an earlier post, part of the automation argument is a balance of risks - how you weight your QF32s (aircraft saved by the pilots) against your AF447s (aircraft destroyed by the pilots).
The other issue frustrating me here is that many seem to be using the current state of the art in making a call, rather than understanding that for fully automated aircraft to exist, you'd have to have far greater redundancy within the automation, as you don't have pilots to fall back on.
I don't think we'll see fully automated aircraft or even single pilot airliners this century, but I'm very interested in making sure I understand the debate as like most on here, my future depends on it!
Nunc est bibendum
My apologies if I construed your comments to be anything but a heartfelt defence for a necessary increase in the automation of an aircraft and a decrease in the human interaction. Your defence that automation for AF447 could have saved the day (notwithstanding the acknowledged pilot errors of the day) ignores the reality of dealing with an aeroplane with no accurate sources of data and perhaps clouded my perception of your intent that automation actually ISN'T all it's cracked up to be.
Perhaps it's wading through too many Airbus manuals at the moment that is clouding my judgement!
Perhaps it's wading through too many Airbus manuals at the moment that is clouding my judgement!
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: NZ
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your defence that automation for AF447 could have saved the day
I don't accept that it's difficult to program an aircraft to revert to basic attitude flying when there's a pitot/static problem, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree - my hijacking of this thread has gone on long enough - apologies to those wanting to discuss the Qantas board.
Nunc est bibendum
I don't accept that it's difficult to program an aircraft to revert to basic attitude flying when there's a pitot/static problem,
Automation is a tool and like the hammer in the previous analogy of paying the engineer $1 to hit the engine and $99 to know where to hit it. Automation is just a really complicated hammer that pilots use to hit the problem to solve it. Air France were derelict in ensuring that their crew weren't properly trained in how to use it. You're being derelict in thinking that the tool can do the job always intended for the person doing the thinking.
