Originally Posted by
3holelover
It seems to me....
...that many of you are looking for all sorts of things that either automation or aircraft systems of one sort or another could have done/be done in future to help in this situation, while forgetting that flying is an inherently dangerous undertaking that has, for eons now, been made rather routine by simply training pilots how to handle their machines.
Flying is inherently dangerous, but how a/c's got better and better from their original inception, was also from understanding the shortcomings and improving or eliminating them. Combining a better training with an improved a/c is a better combination than just training.
Yes, you could automate the hell out of the thing, but at some point, somehow, all that automation could easily be counter productive.... Can't you imagine a situation, for instance, where a stab that returns to neutral automatically, might be a bad thing? Maybe it's best to leave the aircraft handling to pilots?
Maybe it's better to train pilots to fly, rather than manage computers?
The current model is only going to progress on even further automation.
What is needed, is to eliminate or minimize the shortcomings in the design, which will reduce the risks of manual flying..
This aircraft didn't fail. One system alone had what should have been a non earth shattering, temporary fault, due to ice crystals, but then it's pilot(s) failed.
Certain elements of the current design had their own contribution to the failure of the pilots. Improving those elements will only make the design, the a/c better, and the flying safer.
Yes, as I said earlier, I agree there are probably some tweaks that might make sense, but I don't think anyone should get carried away in burying human failure with more complexity and more tacked-on, automated garbage that will wind up fouling somebody else down the road.
don't see it as more complexity, but exactly the opposite less complexity. I think much of the current complexity is so - complex - because it is counter-intuitive. Making it more intuitive is making it simpler and easier for the pilots to quickly understand. From the information regarding the active stick position/motion shared directly among the pilots, to a more logical Stall Warning, to an Autotrim that locks, making sense in a Stall condition... etc.
As yet, nobody wants to fly in a fully automated, pilotless aircraft. All we need, to get folks to their destination safely, in any serviceable aircraft, is a pilot who knows his machine, and knows how to fly it. That simple formula has been proven to be quite safe. What was missing here wasn't more junk, it was human knowledge and skill. Airmanship.
We've been at this since the first passenger airplane: we have continuously complemented airplane shortcomings with pilot talent and training. But... in the same time we have improved a/c's after each accident that made us understand better its shortcomings.
Does anyone here really believe an aircraft can be made that won't stall? My limited knowledge of aerodynamics and physics tells me, with current aircraft design, that's not possible.
This a/c showed a remarkable stability and extraordinary structural integrity during the Stall. That is exceptional.
It would be nice to be able to make it so it would not stall. But I don't see that as an attainable goal.
However, it is achievable to improve the logic, the algorithms, the software subsystem, so that remarkable stability, and extraordinary structural integrity is not wasted if in a stall, by making the stall avoidance better, and stall recovery easier.