Indonesian aircraft missing off Jakarta

[Ian W]

Originally Posted by alf5071h

edmund #876, gums,
“ … reluctance in the industry to realistically quantify the expectation that a crew will be able to follow a recovery procedure.”
Not only the reluctance, the inability to quantify due to the inherent unpredictable human condition, because activity is heavily biased perception - the event at the time, etc, etc.

The industry increasingly appears to favour using a model of how technology works, or should work, (tech / certification), but when events show otherwise then instead of updating the model and changing the system the industry looks to ‘change the human’ - to match (mitigate) the errant tech model with more training.
We cannot expect pilots to manage technical failures in real time which are difficult to define in design or check in certification, or those which exceed the certification requirements (25.1302).

The interim procedure (AD) is full of assumptions. The background information frames the situation explaining the need for a new drill based on encountering an un-commanded nose down change of trim - education, training, simulation, (would a simulation show all of the other distracting features, or just a change in trim).

However, the inflight reality in manual flight (flaps up ?), the PF (failed side) could be more concerned by the stick shaker and speed indications, and distracting system alerts. Detecting a trim malfunction depends on a change in stick force (perhaps initially relating this to elevator opposed to trim). Potential for confusion, selecting an inappropriate drill / recovery action, etc, …

Conversely if the failure is on the PNF side, then further confusion - “what are you doing” CRM communication - totally different situations depending on displayed information, (no stick force), may choose unrelated checklist - UAS; incorrect mindset, difficult to change. (Similar to the Swedish CRJ)
Add surprise and continuing startle effect because of the apparent inability to control the aircraft or that the initial action did not work - where next …
The AD like the tech system is based on the same model; it assumes that the pilot will manage. (an assumption also seen in AF447, 20+ preceding events, AMS 737, ‘there is a drill for that’ - at higher altitudes)
………………

Oh, … and without AoA failure, inadvertently approaching a stall, - stick shake, low seed awareness, change in stick force (STS), misdiagnosed as a trim malfunction (salience of recent events), might a crew ‘inadvertently’ pull up, disconnect trim, etc, stalling the aircraft.
Little consideration of the human condition, their limitations in performance related to understanding of the situation; how we make sense of situations, in real time; AD - an assumption too far.

It is necessary to go back to the principle of FMC/FMS and avionics design. There are pilots on board and the FMC/FMS avionics is intended to make their life simpler. There is a significant cost in coding to deal with every potential error. So the design principle is that the automatics will be coded to field the basic well understood errors however as soon as it becomes complicated, - the 'otherwise case' - in the last resort the automatics hand the bag of bolts to the crew. The crew are expected to carry out the fault finding and correction using a set of checklists and if all else fails, their own innate capabilities as pilots to recover from the 'otherwise case'.

If the AD is considered in this light it is right along the line of the design principle. FMC cannot cope with differing angle of attack indications so passes bag of bolts to pilot. The pilots in this instance were not able to fly out of the problem. So the AD emphasizes the correct checks and operations to be used if this otherwise case occurs again. If the design principles are changed (and they are slowly changing) eventually the 'otherwise cases' the automatics cannot handle become extremely unlikely; and perhaps pilots will not be needed as the automatics will not drop out.