Originally Posted by gums
Still want folks to know that the human "body rates" can help for the first second when something unusual happens.
Absolutely! Feelings of acceleration or turning are not to be taken lightly. Without any doubt they have to be crosschecked against instruments to see whether they are in accordance with the aeroplane's maneuvers or they're just illusions.
Originally Posted by CONF iture"
Captain my great Captain, you may as well forget about any mechanical link for the AF447's rudder.
Because you say so? Because Airbus has radically redesigned rudder architecture on 330s since a couple of years ago? Because someone is unable to appreciate the difference between "controlled" and "operated" when discussing the flight controls as in "manually controlled and hydraulically operated"?
Originally Posted by Ian W
It could be said that the only reason that pilots are required is for when the automatics fail.
Of course it could be said but it would be a lie. There's no automatic decision making. There is no automatic take-off. More correct version would be: pilots must be able to manually fly the aeroplane out of any situation automatics put it into.
Originally Posted by Ian W
Several posts here have statements like: "The simulator does not perform like the real aircraft after a stall" or "the simulator cannot behave as the real aircraft does outside the normal flight envelope" and even "the simulator does not fly like the real aircraft in Alternate Law"
So the simulator is being used to train pilots in how to handle emergencies, upsets and LOC, despite actually not behaving like the real aircraft in emergencies, upsets and LOC?
The current approach of only using simulators for training pilots to fly simulators does not seem extremely logical. I am sure that the accountants love it.
What a slippery slope! Simulators don't simulate the areas that we know nothing about because no flight testing was done (or required to be done) in them. They have to very realistically simulate stall behaviour but to check what the transport aeroplane would do if someone stubbornly insisted in pulling into stall would be asking far too much from the test pilots. Statement that simulator doesn't realistically simulate aeroplane's behaviour within normal flight envelope or different control laws is also untrue and that leaves your idea that we train in simulators just to fly simulators completely baseless.
It's not just accountants that love using simulators for training. Pilots, insurers and anyone living under the training zone appreciate it too. Face it: you want to go far, high, fast and with plenty of payload. There's no way in our Newtonian world to make an aeroplane that would do all that and still have the stall behaviour of Cessna 172. People get killed by stalling 172s, anyway.
Originally Posted by Ian W
(...) it is because the human brain has a limited number of cognitive channels and they can only handle ONE input at a time.
That's the best explanation of someone's inability to chew gum and simultaneously tie his laces I've heard in a long time. Attention distribution, proper scanning and avoiding the fixation are basic pilot's survival tools, taught and checked from day one at the controls. If you suck at them, tough luck, you can not be a pilot. What AF447 crew did was the sign of the severe incapacitation, not usual and ordinary human behaviour.
Originally Posted by Ian W
The reason that 'steam gauges with needles' seem to be easier to read is that they are a spatial cognitive load and form patterns that can be recognized without much cognitive effort.
(...)
I should have made it plainer in my wording.
When the verbal cognitive channels are overloaded you can add more to them and all you do is make the effect worse. However, the analogue gauges do not require any verbal cognitive analysis so that channel is unloaded. So you can see a VSI needle move hard down and understand what it means even if the verbal cognitive channel is in overload - numbers changing though won't work as that requires a level of verbal analysis.
Speed and altitude tapes might be digitally driven but their presentation is analogue! There might be a digital readout added but there's no need to read it while performing normal instrument scan. Patterns on modern EFIS can be recognized without much cognitive effort and you might be surprised that Airbus EFIS does include VSI needle.
I have never heard about real life pilot that had problems switching from round dials to tapes (me included). I have came across those who made painless transition from sidestick and tapes to round dials and yoke, so when reading complaints about modern aeroplanes' cockpits, I am left with the distinct what-the-heck-are-they-talking-about feeling.
Originally Posted by Ian W
One of the aspects I expect the BEA Human Factors investigators to look at is the cognitive workload that the ECAM and failure messages put on the pilots.
It is very basic task sharing: one pilots flies, the other takes care of ECAM. It was very similar before ECAM, since we started putting two guys up front. One would fly, the other would execute the checklist. Eastern learnt the hard way what happens when everyone goes troubleshooting and no one is minding the store. So Crossair.
Originally Posted by Ian W
Perhaps every potential emergency scenario should be subject to what is called a 'cognitive walk-through' that actually assesses the cognitive loads and identifies likely overloads.
And then what? Prohibit by decree emergencies that overload the crew? There were thirty two cases of UAS on A330/340 fleet before AF447. Question is what made the AF447 crew overloaded and not other 32.
Originally Posted by Ian W
Older pilots may well have followed a rather older but repeatedly successful dictum - disregarding all the cacophony - aviate (i.e. pitch and power), navigate, then communicate.
New pilots too - not following that old dicta is guaranteed to shorten your operational life even on modern jets with all the electronic bells and whistles. You are very unfairly pitting the ideal pilot of yesterday against the single modern crew which tragically underperformed.