Not so Basic Instinct - The Spectator & Sullenberger

[Uncle Fred]

Although I do not appreciate the Speccie's constant adoration and worship of Rupert Murdoch, I very much enjoy reading Rory Sutherland's column.

For a non-aviator I have to say that he has some good insight on how a pilot learns through practice.

Columnists | The Spectator (http://www.spectator.co.uk/columnists/all/7806933/the-wiki-man-notsobasic-instinct.thtml)

I would opine that just like many great "saves" in aviation history, that his day in the barrel going into the Hudson was forged long before in a simulator, at a glider port, or a 100 other experiences that he had in his career.

I sadly believe this thread will be in danger of being hijacked into a young verus old argument (which I will ignore although I think 65 is more than time to set aside the tools of the trade) whereas it should really be about how we train, how we learn, and what we do with the experiences we accumulate. I was glad to see Sutherland, from outside the industry, pay a respect to that and how it should also be a guiding mind-set in a lot of other areas of our lives.

[Lookleft]

Interesting article. He basically described why AF447 ended in an unsurvivable crash even though the situation was recoverable and why Sullie's flight ended up being survivable even though the situation was not recoverable.

[Wingswinger]

You beat me to it. I was just about to post that article!

[Teevee]

As someone involved in and these days frequently frustrated by education, I'd just like to say that this article is spot on in highlighting a real contemporary deficiency in that area. And as the article also points out, it affects all fields of human activity. It used to be about teaching students how to think through and solve problems. Now, constrained by time and targets it more often than not simply gives convenient short cuts to finding the answers. How to pass an exam or test is what is taught, not skills.

[Phrogman]

any chance you can post the script, couldn't get the link to work on my end. Thanks.

[Tarq57]

Sorry!

We have been unable to find the page you are looking for.
Why not try one of the options below?


The article seems to have been taken down.

[Sillypeoples]

Sully could have either slammed into the Empire State building or put it into the river.

There is nothing heroic or experienced or special about having only one option and taking it.

That said, the media blitz by the airlines/Airbus to deflect lawsuits, or examination by any real aviation authority as to why both engines shut down and couldn't be restarted is just the type of hype/spin we can expect in this country to deflect any kind of transparency and accountability off of the crew/manufacturer/airline etc.
:ugh:

[RadioSaigon]

hmmm... I found the article -or at least the 1st few lines of it- on the Spectator website after doing a brief search for Rory Sutherland. Unfortunately, it appears they've figured out they're onto something with that article and want to gouge either £12 for a "trial" or £104 for a full subscription from you to read the rest of the article! Why does that not surprise me from an Australian...

[Uncle Fred]

This is what I had found. I will have to let the mods decide if it had been pulled down, but this was what was up before:




The Wiki Man: Not-so-basic instinct

Rory Sutherland (http://www.spectator.co.uk/search?k=Rory Sutherland&a=Rory Sutherland)28 April 201206:00


As someone who has a panic attack when the Sky box fails to work, I am fascinated by people who stay calm in a major crisis. Hence I love listening to cockpit voice recordings on YouTube. Among the best are Apollo XIII and ‘US Airways Flight 1549’ — the ‘Miracle on the Hudson’.
[teaser]
With both engines of an Airbus A320 knocked out by a birdstrike, captain Chesley B. Sullenberger III is offered an emergency landing at Teterboro. He pauses for a second. Then: ‘We can’t do it…. We’re going to be in the Hudson.’

At this point, it is worth noting a few facts about the pilot. He was 57 at the time, an age which would disqualify him from many airlines. He was a former military pilot with 40 years’ flying experience and 19,000 hours of flight time — about 18,930 more than John Kennedy Jnr. He also had experience flying zero-engined aircraft: he was a keen glider pilot.

How could he decide so quickly that landing at Teterboro was impossible? Instead of taking out a scientific calculator, consulting instruments, calculating the rate of descent and working out his range, he simply looked out of the window.

I think the instinctive process (or ‘heuristic’) works like this. 1) Put the aircraft into as shallow a glideslope as possible. 2) Look forwards out of the window. 3) Everywhere where the ground appears to be moving upwards in your field of vision is a place you can’t reach. 4) Everywhere else is somewhere you could land. In cricket, fielders use a related process to catch high balls. It’s not a conscious thing. We can’t describe how we do it — we just do. And we learn it not through teaching, but through practice.

This incident led to an interesting debate about airline safety and pilot experience. Some commentators asked whether younger pilots who had grown up flying aircraft with the latest navigation systems would ever develop the feel for an aircraft that older pilots had. By analogy, people asked whether drivers who grew up with Dynamic Stability Control ever acquire the instinct for controlling a skid? In other words, do many non-mechanical technologies, without our noticing it, strip out the many tacit, subliminal cues our senses instinctively use? Charles Moore spotted something missing when reading on his Kindle: the experience of reading is changed when you don’t know how close you are to the end. With a physical book you are always aware of the approaching denouement (unless it’s the Agatha Christie I once borrowed from Monmouth library, which had the last, decisive pages ripped out and ‘Ha Ha!’ written in the margin).

I don’t think Boeing will ever design airliners without windscreens, making pilots fly through instrumentation alone. But you could argue the banking sector did something similar. Overreliance on computers and mathematical models seems to have created a generation of people who know how to program an autopilot but couldn’t fly. Had they spent more time developing their instincts, they might have seen something was wrong much sooner. You didn’t really need a maths PhD; instead you just had to go to Spain and ask, ‘Who is going to buy all these ****ty houses?’ Computerisation may give the illusion of perfect information while eliminating the role played by instinct, experience and ‘feel’. It sometimes resembles a conspiracy by the young and smart against the old and wise.

Tellingly, when bankers are grilled on television, it is only those aged over 55 who talk sense. That’s why I favour taxes on pensions and a minimum age of 55 for MPs. We need the world’s Sullenbergers at the controls of a plane, not on a golf course.

Rory Sutherland is vice-chairman of Ogilvy Group UK.

[sevenstrokeroll]

Looking out the window...

For those who would really like to understand this, no finer explanation is available than in the book, "Stick and Rudder" by Wolfgang Langweische...Wolf's son, William Langweische actually wrote a book praising the automatic systems of the airbus as the biggest aid in a safe landing...go figure.

Someone wrote, he had a choice of landing in the hudson or hitting the empire state buidling. I really don't think this is true. Having flown the route many times, the Hudson probably offered the least risk to those on the ground, but 4 pilots duplicating this misadventure in the sim turned and made LGA. They didn't hesitate in the turn, and when penalized 30 seconds to gain a sense of what had happened they didn't make LGA.

There were other options too...there is major freeway called Interstate 80, that if followed would sort of lead to Teterboro airport...but a landing on the freeway might have been accomplished (but again, more risk to innocent New Jersey drivers...if there are such things).

Also, ATC offered sully an entry into the downwind instead of directly to the end of the runway nearest his position at Teterboro.

I do recall sully saying something like: the people of new york had suffered too many plane crashes with the 911 attacks...how this influenced the decision making process might be quite important.

Looking out the window is a good idea...when you can see something! Always know where you will ''put her down'' is a good idea too.

[RMC]

Sillypeoples... you need to read the incident report. He had no options at the time of failure but took one critical action (not in the book) which meant it became survivable. Read the report... find out what it was... then comment further.

[Uncle Fred]

Sillypeoples... you need to read the incident report. He had no options at the time of failure but took one critical action (not in the book) which meant it became survivable. Read the report... find out what it was... then comment further.


Well, although the Ux seems to call me a simpleton on occassion I would beg to differ that we are silly peoples for considering this article.

I posted it as a humble example that there are those out there in commentary land who, whilst not aviators, nevertheless appreciate not only the direct action of Sully and his crew but also some of the subtlety of the event as well.

Of course this was not meant to be an exhaustive exegisis of the accident report--that I am sure has been posted elsewhere and I would have thought that to be rather obvious. Instead, I was merely pleased that someone out there who is a non-flyer "got it" which is indeed what Sutherland did. A senior VP of the Olgivy group needs no defense from me, but I do appreciate that he added some interesting thoughts.

BTW, Sully indeed took "one critical action" but there was more than one path even in that. He flew E-SE down the Hudson, he could have made a right turn and flown up the river. This of course would not have been a good choice perhaps but even something as straightforward as taking it into the river had a decision path...

[Treg]

Uncle Fred,

I have read HighestDuty and had the opportunity to hear first-hand the events of the Hudson landing during at a recent aviation safety summit.

From my understanding there were perhaps not so much, many options, but variables within a couple of realistic options that day. These variables had to analysed, actioned precisely, in correct sequence, in appropriate time and, this is perhaps the crux, without many months to review data and independent commentary to determine a course of action.

Sully is very quick to acknowledge the support of his FO and ATC, who were experiencing this for the first time too. Without their support he doubts the outcome would have been the same.
As for gliding expertise helping the outcome, both book and personal account discount this.

Someone had asked whether this (Hudson Landing) qualified Sully to fly seaplanes? The authority was consulted and Sully received advice that, after two more successful landings you will qualify…:)