flh:
Quote:
Tired poorly trained pilots can still kill people, hi tech or no
True, but at a rate, and in parts of the world, where it seems 'acceptable'.
Quote:
FOQA/FDM
A bit airy-fairy but a useful tool to keep folk worried about doing anything out of the ordinary.
Quote:
ASRs
Quite airy-fairy, although correctly used, the system can have significant impact in reducing, for example, ramp events (which are very costly).
Quote:
LOSA
The most airy-fairy of the group you put forward, but a great place for wannabe academics to pretend that they aren't dull, boring pilots. (I think I got that the right way round...)
FOQA, ASR and LOSA Programs don't need defending from me of course but I am interested in the views expressed nevertheless. I am not assuming naivete here at all and am taking your response seriously.
Would you stop work on "aviation safety" at the aircraft-design stage then? What are your views on the role of the regulator, and of individual airline policies and procedures, including SOPs both in and beyond the cockpit?
I ask because in one approach, unacceptable risk is (so your line of thought appears to suggest), designed out of the system whereas in the latter approach, some level of risk, acceptable or otherwise, is assumed to always be present and so programs are designed to highlight such areas so something can be done to mitigate risk-made-visible.
The notion that the rate of fatal accidents is somehow more acceptable in Africa than "elsewhere" depends upon who's views you are invoking. I doubt if either ICAO, IATA or even the FSF would concur with your opinion. The only logical conclusion one may draw from the observation is then, perhaps the Africans themselves accept the fatality rate as somehow "inevitable"? Is this more of a political observation than a tactical one? Either way, the point requires clarification.
I note a strong disdain for the work of "academics, pretenders or otherwise". I don't know how one actually comes to define "a wannabe" from a genuine academic but if I pursue that, this thread will likely be moved!
I think suspending judgement in favour of curiosity is better approach, and is always a healthy attitude but only on the basis of the work produced - if it's poor work, (and there is a lot of it around and there are a lot of guys out there stumping ideas and selling books. I note however that the snake-oil doesn't survive very long), then academia needs to hear about it. Otherwise, dismissing "academics" for the sake of it is simply an irrational prejudice and not worthy of further discussion. I doubt if that's what you meant but that is for you to clarify, not me. For sure there are charlatans everywhere in all walks. One's notions must either withstand the marketplace of ideas or they must fail on their own merit (despite individual attitudes towards either profession). That goes for pilots and academics alike, although results of anyone "pretending to the throne" as pilots are clearly more serious. The business has a way of winnowing, as you likely know.
For me, and this will not come as a shock I am sure, I see a partnership between knowledge and design. Some here have said it differently - bad pilots still kill people regardless of how push-buttony, CRT'd and Idiot-proofed the craft their flying is. Not sure if you fly the Airbus product but that airplane will still very nicely and smoothly fly you into the ground. Are you a fan then of auto-go-arounds, auto-TCAS interventions and auto-CFIT responses? My assumption is that you are, for if you are not then there is indeed a limit to which design and automation will intercede in flight path control beyond the crew's authority and which then will clearly point to data-gathering, risk-management and human intervention responses.
FWIW, I find your challenge very interesting indeed as one place to find either justifications for, or the true criticisms (and change) of, any such "airy-fairy" work particularly in aviation where very expensive fluff does not belong, is from these very observations. Just because something is complex, has a long history and is the creation of and subject of many academic works does not automatically imbue them with the royal jelly.
But I will leave you with one example and you can either take it from there or I will assume you weren't serious in the first place and was just having fun with the remarks made: -Don Bateman, the inventor, (literally) of GPWS and later EGPWS, has almost certainly, (although I don't have the exact numbers), single-handedly saved more lives from his chair in academia than the Airbus design itself. That's obviously a guess but I think it's a pretty good one, given that most airliners have Don's invention and perhaps even EGPWS but not all airliners are Airbus 320 fleet types - in fact, most are not. Nevertheless, there it is - a blend of academia, intelligently conceived and applied, and intelligently comprehended and implemented, (where worthy, which, see above), and good design such as the Airbus (with which I heartily agree with you having flown and instructed on the 319/320/330/340 types for many thousands of hours) is the best recipe for safe flight. I believe that an unquestioned disdain for academia and it's products and place in aviation is a significant mistake but that is a personal view again which needs no defence here. The marketplace of ideas and perhaps the statistics have already independantly voted.
Best,
PJ2