Originally Posted by
Vessbot
In the possible scenario where it suddenly takes 4 hands to hold the nose up (like what is being speculated here) it would certainly still be a problem.
There seems to be a reluctance in the industry to realistically quantify the expectation that a crew will be able to follow a recovery procedure.
Human failures whether due to cognitive overload, lack of training, too many sectors, or baby cried last night, are holes in the Swiss cheese exactly like mechanical faults.
The mechanical failures are quantified, while in some strange way maybe connected to liability and legal engineering, crew ability is expected to be perfect.
And if the pointy end can't cut faultless on that day, too bad, they won't make it - nor will the paying freight in the cylindrical end.
But the fact that there was a procedure, however improbable that it can work outside the sim, negates liability. Beancounters happy.
I don't think that the industry is only recruiting clones of Sully.
And btw Sully dealt with a clear mechanical failure, he didn't need to psychoanalyze and then lobotomize HAL in real time.
If real pilots can't RELIABLY deal with dangerously misbehaving automation then maybe the automation needs improving.
Someone over there where they make rules and profits, should be forced to accept that real pilots fly planes.
And the way to make things improve - in the US system - is by attaching liability to a process which only the best or luckiest can follow.
Edmund