Originally Posted by
Gretchenfrage
The machine seems to get away with almost everything
Apart from where the report explicitly criticises the stall warning behaviour and recommends a review of the control and warning interfaces, right?
Right now if you dare blaming any machine, you get grilled and shouted down by the usual crowd, or should i say lobbyists.
Again, I disagree. From my perspective it seems that while there are indeed lobbyists for the manufacturers - and an all-pervading corporate tendency to "circle the wagons" on the part of all manufacturers and vendors, it's also fair to say that on the other side there exists a subset of pilots - and some pilots' unions in particular - who act almost blindly as "lobbyists" in the other direction.
Sadly, what this means is that members of both of these "lobby" groups have ended up metaphorically sticking their fingers in their ears while loudly and repeatedly stating that their own case is a fundamental truth. This perception of an immutable "other side" means that we end up with both parties trying to shout the other down - and pretty much the only beneficiaries of this situation are journalists, many of whom make a lucrative living from a "let's you and him fight" scenario.
The last sentence points at a almost philosophical (yes, PJ2), albeit inevitably realistic fact ... they will be confronted with only their machine.
Except for the point that, like a lot of general journalism on the subject, the article assumes that technological advances and increased automation capabilities are aimed at removing human pilots from the flight deck in the foreseeable future which, to the best of my knowledge, is absolutely not the case (though it does make for interesting copy and is a psychological trigger for knee-jerk responses).
At some point, it's going to be necessary for those with an entrenched viewpoint on both sides of the argument to re-evaluate that position. Of course the legal/marketing departments of the manufacturers are always going to be aggressive in defending their products - for better or worse in this day and age they wouldn't be doing their jobs if they didn't. But I must say that the engineering side of things has accepted in recent times that while the technology has solved a lot of the inherent safety questions (and the stats absolutely support that conclusion), it has also added a new set of challenges in terms of safety. That the human/technology interface will always be something of a "work-in-progress" also seems to be generally accepted. However, the tech-sceptics on the piloting side also need to accept that the worst-case scenarios they predicted back in the '80s have not come to pass.
Ultimately both sides need to let go of the past. For example, at this point in time you will have F/Os coming on to the line who weren't even born when BZ made his infamous "concierge" remarks, and as such bringing that up at this point in time is largely irrelevant.
Furthermore, there needs to be an acceptance that when it comes to aviation safety, "blame" is a counter-productive concept. And I'm sorry to say this, but from my point of view it appears that the "tech-sceptic" piloting lobby is very much behind on this. Various articles and discussion from that end maintain that the AF447 BEA report "blames" the crew, when in fact it does no such thing.
Originally Posted by
infrequentflyer789
Until the machines design build and maintain themselves (at which point it will likely be their world not ours), there will always be a human to blame.
But in this case, you are forgetting, the machine was blamed, judged and punished - straight after the accident.
...other very good points...
+1-Yes-Thank you-Got it in one.
Originally Posted by
Machinbird
however the PF had just been through 30+ seconds of hell that shook his faith in his aircraft's control system and fatigued his mind.
With all due respect, I think that's a very valid theory (particularly given your experience in that area) - however due to the nature of investigation of fatal accidents it can never be any more than that.
Why didn't he control the nose attitude you might ask. The simple answer is that he didn't have the attention to spare to adequately perform that task. He was concentrating almost exclusively on the roll channel and I believe was already tense and nervous before the autopilot dropped out which caused him to pull the stick back unconsciously.
Again, with respect, I feel a little dubious on that point for two reasons. Firstly, if my experience in the sim was anything to go by as regards the real aircraft, the spring-centre of the sidestick was certainly positive enough such that I don't believe inadvertent pitch input would be an easy thing to accomplish. Secondly, he makes a very specific reference to the fact he was deliberately pulling up, which does not tally with the idea the pitch aspect was unintentional.
I must say I'm in PJ2's camp there.