Originally Posted by
jmmoric
That's a lot of aircraft...
But I'm a bit unsure what you meant? If Lion Air has a bad reputation, then yes... But taking every single pilot from the company, and putting into the same bucket, is not fair. And I'm sure Lion Air is/has been working hard on the issues... but you can never blame them for something they had no idea in their wildest dreams would be comming their way.
Though I agree pilots could use more "on hands" time, I'm not sure that is even doable in modern aircraft, they're very much automated, and that goes even for Boeing.... Airbus has just taken the step fully, and re-done how you control an aircraft completely.... which works fine (until you pull that fuse).
Hi jmmoric
No I wasn’t referring to Lionair. Just about how stats can be misleading. New airlines can seem great but you can’t tell from a small fleet over a short time. Older airlines with great decades of safe flying can become complacent. Things change. Then even luck can come into it as per BA 777 LHR on the grass. 40 odd years of great safety. Great skill in the circumstances. But ten miles earlier it could have been very different over central London.
Another stat that gets missed is how many total or near hull losses were there. With no fatalities. That is a massive warning sign. I can think of a few right now.
Your second point is of course now at the epicenter of the automation argument. Do we train to still retain basic stick and rudder “in case”, or do we say the automatics can handle most things better than humans? And is there an in between where the automatics do most of it with a bit of pilot intervention (takeoff and windy landings at the moment). But does this give our pilot enough practice when it’s needed?
good subject this.
I am in stick an rudder camp but my name gives that away!R Guy