zamboni, “… just as with cars”.
This is not necessarily the future of aviation.
Cars aim for the complete works - driverless; with hard lessons being learnt so far, accidents, fatalities. And whilst statistically safe, the performance does not match public expectation; latterly this is being alleviated by requiring a car-human combination. This too is flawed thinking, using a very poor human monitor, to monitor or take over from very complex technology.
Commercial aviation at least, appears to be starting with a man-machine combination, where the strengths and weakness of each are considered as a balanced whole (proposals for reduced crew operations).
Unfortunately this approach has yet to be introduced in system design and certification. Thus this incident represents various human weaknesses in the design and certification processes before the event, as much as the event itself; where deficiencies are currently only identified with hindsight.
A further issues if a human based safety management (design, certification, and incident investigation), with inherent human limitations (error), will be more unreliable than the operation itself. Safety management looks for error, it will find error; however who's error, safety management or operation.
“… the mind creates maps of reality in order to understand it, because the only way we can process the complexity of reality is through abstraction. … that we will frequently use an incorrect model simply because we feel any model is preferable to no model.”
“A model might show you some risks, but not the risks of using it.”
.
Last edited by alf5071h; 21st May 2022 at 07:45.
Reason: ‘design, certification, and incident investigation’