Good point Peter. Jim Lovell's remark is absolutely at odds with the accident report.

The crew thought the computers were still flying the plane and could get them out of trouble. But they weren't, and the crew's unwitting manual inputs thinking the automatics would calculate a best response caused the plane to stay stalled.

In that case, not just an over-reliance on automatics was a contributing factor, but a lack of understanding of them.

TT

Jm Lovell
 

As I said at the bottom of the page. Had that crew and the many other crews who have been victims of their own ignorance, it would have helped them no end if they had been taught how to work their AP systems and then been mentored after the course to ensure proper understanding of 'real world' events.

G

the crucial element is the brain – even a crab could have one. As ignorance has been mentioned, it is created in the human brain. People are not ignorant by nature, rather the opposite. From the very early upbringing and development of cognitive functioning, a brain adapts to the environment and adjusts the thinking patterns accordingly.

However I keep being told that ignorance is sometimes called a rather typical British attitude. All the recent accidents in the UK NS sector seem to include some sort of ignorance. Is it really just luck the Norwegians did not have such a chain of accidents? In the wider picture there might simply be a bit of a greater cultural issue. Human structures in Scandinavia seem less hierarchic and the seniors are far less autocratic. It would be interesting to research the effect of such a difference in culture on cognitive performance during complex tasks like NS helicopter operations.

So just keep calm and carry on?

Wot, our crab do you mean, surely not! (only joking, we all know crab has one, the only question is in which bit of the human anatomy does it reside).







Sorry crab, I don't really have a downer on you, just couldnt resist!

xlsky
 

Be careful. Try reading the Noggie MORs before you spout forth. If, of course, you are allowed to see them!!!

A miss maybe a good as a mile on any other world but ours.

G.

G, surely there aren't any 'crab' pilots in your world?

I would suggest Lovell is closer to the mark than some accept. If the Co-Pilot had ceased holding the Stick hard against the Aft Stop and let the airplane accelerate.....or at the outset of the situation just not done a thing but maintain Attitude and Power setting....none of the sad bit would have occurred. At some point we have to accept that Pilots in advanced aircraft shall have to apply basic piloting skills no matter what the AFCS/Flight Director/Autopilot is telling the aircraft to do. Whether Lovell was correct or was incorrectly quoted by the Reporter is also something that needs to be considered before you criticize the Man.

If you watch any accurate re-enactment of the sequence of events that took place on AF447....you would understand the value hand flying skills and proper analysis of indications and selecting the correct response has on one's survival.

"Thinking" and its value cannot be over emphasized as a precursor to acting. Acting without properly thinking through one's planned actions and the ramifications of improper actions of course cannot be overrated either.

Absolutely. I cringe every time I see people comparing the safety record across the sea. There have plenty of very near misses on the norwegian side in the last couple of years that were averted by nothing more than shear luck, and nothing to do with culture! With 2 CFITS in the UK sector in 5 years, this could very easily have happened in the Norwegian sector and more. It is always a problem when people lean too heavily on statistics. It is a lazy way to asses a problem. The same problems exist there, believe me!

SASless
Lovell was correct or was incorrectly quoted by the Reporter is also something that needs to be considered before you criticize the Man.

Neither I nor the poster I referenced/quoted was attempting in any way to criticize Lovel.

However his reputation is such that his [reported] utterances tend to be accepted uncritically. So it seemed appropriate
to highlight the rare misstatement [or misquotation] ASAP.

IMHO the fact that AF447's autopilot did not stall the aircraft actually serves to reinforce Lovel's main point that all
is not well with some features of the current pilot+automation division of labour. (The pilots were [abruptly] handed
a perfectly manageable situation -- had they been sufficiently situation-aware.)

Regards, Peter

As a retired software engineer an old adage springs to mind. "To err is human, but to really foul things up you need a
computer." A similar statement no doubt applies to certain styles of management, especially when applied to safety-
critical systems.

HC it's called banter, no problem:ok:

If you want to see a public sense of humour failure, look at the last post in the '2 helos collide in NZ' thread where the OP throws his teddies clean out of the cot, probably dropping the big chips on his shoulders in the process:E

Back to the thread and we do seem to have an over-reliance on automation and computer control to makes things easier for humans but we seem prone to assuming that such automation is fail-safe. In the AF447's crash, the computer tried to do what it was programmed to but 'garbage in garbage out' (no speed information) meant that it was up to the humans to save the day.

Unfortunately it was the wrong humans with the wrong mental picture of what was happening and a suspension of logical thought and action due to fear.

But surely the problem is not an over-reliance on automation, its a lack of understanding about how the automation works, eg in the case of AF a lack of understanding that the FBW system had gone into a fallback mode in which flight envelope protection was disabled, due to conflicting airspeed data. Normally, holding the sidestick right back would have been fine. But not when the FBW is in fallback.

The answer is thus better training and checking that pilots fully understand how the automation is going to behave in both normal and abnormal modes, rather than having automation training and checking as an add-on afterthought as sometimes seems to be the case at the moment (in RW).

HC, you are quite right but I meant the comment more generally in that we often fail to recognise that such training is required, simply because our perception is that it is all automated and 'fail-safe'.

My feeling is that automation relieves the work load but leads to complacency, & lack of attention especially if you are doing routine tasks.
A lot of software is not user friendly then throw in the ergonomics !!
Everything fails at some time either terminally or for a short time, a incorrect press of a button, hitting 2 at once can produce untold results that are all most unrepeatable.
The whole thing is a sad day for both the families & crew, which will impact their lives forever.

And that's another problem. With sidesticks, as opposed to conventional control columns, the other pilot has no indication what the other guy is doing with the controls. In the AF accident, the PNF was not aware that tyhe PF had the stick fully aft. That's the reason(I believe) why Boeing don't use them.

Yes, you wonder if, at any stage during the design and certification process, someone asked the question about what happens if both pilots are trying to fly the aircraft at the same time.

In a conventional aircraft the strongest person wins but with fly by wire sidesticks????? Perhaps the answer was ' Non! c'est impossible.'

I think the AF 447 Thread number 11 is alive and well over in Tech Log. :cool:

Is the mishap aircraft in this accident fly by wire, or do both collective and cyclic controls move so that the other pilot knows what is going on?

If One raises One's Lever to the Up Stop....and pushes the other Stick up against the Instrument Panel......Airspeed increases and height is gained.

Yes....even a very dull Third Grader would notice the application of control inputs in many different ways.

I have control/you have control and monitoring of the basic panel is not a lot to ask.

Pilots who have never flown or learnt to fly on a very basic machine take a lot for granted.

That goes for fixed wing as well.

Don't all pilots learn on basic machines?