Originally Posted by jcjeant
I dunno to what FBW aircraft statistics you take reference ... but for the Airbus FBW serie .. all important accidents were the cause of pilots errors (and some human errors associated) ..... never the aircraft (system or engines or structural) was plain implied in the cause of accidents.
And it's seem's that the AF447 (and the Libyan A330) accident will be added to this list
In fact .. so far .. after read all BEA or NTSB or other reports about Airbus accidents .. the aircraft was always working fine (minus the Sully one and the Qantas A380...) .. the pilots .. no.
Globally today the statistics shown that 75-80 % accidents are caused by pilot errors .....
That's normal that the balance change (more accidents cause pilot errors ) .. as the technology (engines and systems and structures) are more reliable today
You didn't get what I meant... Pilot errors were most frequent (primary) causes of accidents even 40 years ago. And they are now as well, of course. The important thing to notice is that todays total number of accidents (per number of flights or flying hours -- whatever you choose) is significantly (i.e. few times!) less than just the accidents caused by pilot errors those 30-40 years ago. That means than (so) many pilot errors went away. It's either because pilots are so much better today (which is rather hard to belive) or their errors either get corrected or are unable to happen. IOW: those protections do work. Of course CRM progress has helped as well, but all those protections, GPWSes, TCASes, FDs, etc. are primary factors.
Originally Posted by dlcmdrx
BS. They are clearly stating that the airplane will fly safer than any pilot. And therefore implying pilts are not safe.
What he doesnt say of course is that their philosophy without all the protections would be hell, but whatever im not even gonna argue, ab has gone away wih so much stuff its ridiculous.
It's not BS. BS is your overinterpretation
. And those protections are the primary reasons that from about 2500 heavy FBW planes out there only 4 (or 5 if flight testing is included) were lost while on duty (compared to ~40 out of 1500 of most popular earlier design).
Originally Posted by dlcmdrx
What is worrying is the amount of pilots defending people like the above from the quote.
Maybe they're grown up pilots, who know their limitations and that their duty is to without undue risk get those few hundred souls behind them to their destination not their destiny. There are both old pilots and there are bold pilots, but there are no bold old pilots, my son.
Originally Posted by ChristiaanJ
We've been here before, it seems.....
The 'fidelity' of the simulator 'on the edge and beyond' is doubtful, because of the lack of aerodynamic data 'on the edge and beyond' the envelope. So such training may well lead to installing wrong habits. (The 'low-level' 'maintain altitude' UAS procedures seem to be one of those 'wrong habits'.)
And the 'beancounters' are not going to allow taking real aircraft 'up there' just for training......
I hope you're not proposing that pilots should train stall-recovery (or even approach to stall) while there few hudred pieces of Self Loading Cargo behind them
.
There is no other option than sims to train dangerous things.
Originally Posted by ChristiaanJ
Personal remark....
When the 'brown matter hits the ventilator', initial training, or highly incidental sim training (even if FFS), or incidental glider or aerobatic training (as suggested elsewere), will never be enough.
Until more research is done about 'the edge', and that research is fed back into training, and possibly a look at the aircraft/pilot interface, another 'AF447' is bound to happen sooner or later.
Well, AF447 would not happen if PF handled properly UAS. If that guy simply kept that bird flying (mostly) straight there would be no issue of approach to stall, and no need for stall recovery.
Then I think that sims are capable enough to even train propmpt stall recovery, when the plane is just stalled (with AoA ~7deg at FL350) not when stall was allowed to progress to >40deg AoA.
BESIDES: it looks like that PF was also a glider pilot... So you're apparently right that glider training is no substitute for type training.