wiggy;
I wonder how any such proposed automated solution, if it is being postulated, would handle something like a stick shake at rotation due to LE's retracting (e.g. BA 747 at JNB not that long ago)
And all other combinations of such events...it is an exceedingly difficult problem with which to come to terms, and really, when we come to thinking hard about it, the "goal" is informed by "mistakes and avoiding them" in more complex, crowded systems, (transportation), and therefore is to supplant human perception and response under the heading of avoiding "human error" for the purposes of commerce. Training and experience go a long way but so do error-trapping habitual behaviours where it is assumed that at each "fork in the road" so to speak, one "will" make a mistake, and so a form of "recursive" behaviour (constant revisiting of decisions/actions - not "second-guessing" but quietly, constantly confirming/re-affirming "normal"). It works for error trapping but not for system faults and emergencies, where SOPs, training, memorization and simply knowing one's airplane are irreplaceable responses.
The discussion on automation interventions is first, philosophical, and that does not mean merely specifiying and quantifying techniques but examining cognitive processes and the assumptions underlying the philosophy of mind. This won't go over well here I know, because this is a Tech Forum, but all that can and has been done in the name of "technique" and "automation", rests upon such assumptions about perception, response and cognitive processes whether we choose to examine them or not. I think it is better to examine them and know upon which basis our choices are being made in terms of system design, but one person ain't going to change policy.
Graybeard;
...until a fix for a once-in-ten-year event is found, thoroughly tested and implemented.
Absolutely spot on.