Originally Posted by 25th May 2011, 01:10 oldchina
More automation = more dangerous, is that your point?
Strawman, and a misreading of deSitter's theme. His point is behavioral and systemic, which is over-reliance on automation, which leads to an imbalance in the man-machine interface.
Take a look at page 21 of this Boeing document, then please shut up.
One would expect that, over the time frame given, and the amount of time and effort expended, that causal factors would be identified and solutions proposed. The accident rate would be expected to go down, due to a cultural imperative that it do so. It has been reduced thanks to the flying community communicating to, educating, and training pilots, crews, and all ground staff on accident prevention. Likewise the technical fixes/advancements that have come along. (IFF? TCAS? ILS? GPS? Wind Shear detection?)
That said, each tool has its limits, and traps.
What has also happened in the last sixty years, oldchina, is that we now fly successfully in conditions that we could not at the start point of that graph. So we do. In the year 2011, passenger aircraft are able to risk departing from and landing in more dangerous conditions than when I was born. You could say we are collectively trying to get to the very edge of the danger zone on a routine basis. So the risk profile (and the need for greater mitigation) is much higher now.
The man-machine interface is at the heart of modern machine accidents.
The most effective mitigation for that is training and profieincy in use, as well as awareness of the machine's limitations. As true of my car, or lawn mower, as of any aircraft I ever flew.
I don't think those numbers tell you what you were asserting in your demand that deSitter shut up.