Hi,
TTex600:
AF447 was lost when the crew couldn't decipher the instruments after suffering UAS
Recent trends in automation do nothing to reduce confusion when the excrement hits the fan.
Airbus SAS designed and introduced their products "in close contact" with pilots, we obviously believe.
Normally all incidents and accidents ideally should provide a strong feedback to the design.
Considering "economics" could we expect improvements in the aftermath of AF447?
Considering what we heard from BEA we could be skeptical.
One possibility here in this thread is to characterize
"where is the problem"
There is a trend? i think so. Why? In simple terms is:
A complex System when degrades (for any reason: obsolete pito'ts, harness damage due uncontained eng failure, etc.) presents complex challenges. Crescent complexity should require more R&D investment in the "interface". And crescent "capabilities" in the crew.
The antagonic factors in the problem seems generating a concerning trend. Example:
Require the crew to diagnose consequences of obsolete parts (Pitot's). This problem could be EASILY tackled buy the System. The (lack of) automation here IMHO is because "the Design" doesn't considered important (and/or feasible) help the pilots. Just to inform. It seems the automation was considered more important to act (like auto THS) than to provide means to reduce confusion.
Is there a deep and thorough analysis (from the A/C manufacturers) of possibilities of failures and how pilots would react? Is it possible? The time required to diagnose is compatible with the contingencies you may have?
Pitch and Power "solution", memory items seems tentatives to solve problems without required investment (in the interface).
It seems the "training" is being pressured by lack of investments in the ifce. And in this situation, crew would be vulnerable (to be prone to error).
TTex600:
in my mind two differing interfaces need discussion. the "man - machine" interface and the "human intelligence - computer intelligence" interface.
safetypee:
I have some agreement with this view, but not as you describe – you cannot equate human and machine intelligence.
We will characterize this in our discussion. Indeed interesting point. What concerns me is both issues work together and this mix is complex. Pilots could be required to solve (unpredictable issues) very fast. Is this possible? Or will create a "serious "CRM" issue between the man an the machine, via this complex interface?
When man interacts with a complex interface it seems you have something like a CRM involving not just the crew, but a CRM issue between PF, PM and the machine. Auto THS may be used as an example: A System going to a high FL stall should autotrim to the limit? (13deg NU). And how the should interact with auto features? And in presence of failures?
To be continued to comment on posts of: Bear (machine
), Nat and safetypee. I am preparing to the denser posts more requiring.
.
It's the latter, although at time its seems like the former...
Well, hmm, either you are a machine. Or communicating in a much more different way than most.
I need to be prepared to "on the fly" reconfiguring to discuss with "flying anthropologists".
PS
safetypee,
You put very interesting points and i am studying and thinking. I started to look the issues you commented more recently. And in your thread on monitoring & intervention you are ahead many miles. I need to study to be capable to present good arguments.
. You will feel the heat! The theme is fascinating. An R&D rich field. We will fly (with air superiority) over it. TTex600 put the basic. Good to start.
Rule No.1 Always keep the aircraft in the loop.
Rule No 2 Man is boss over the machine.
Rule No 3 If machine disagrees with Rule No 2 Interface is replaced by Inyerface and man MUST take over.
I liked rule #1. We need to be proactive. Is it always possible? The interface must be friendly to allow. The trend seems not allowing. You can't override (in Airbus). System can decide when degrade. And caught you in surprise.
This concerns me.
Misguided technology?
The trend has it's own power. Concerning.
safetypee, Thank you good links
