AF 447 report out
TTex, whilst acknowledging the excellence in your views, they only represent the differences from established norms. This might assume that these norms are the ideal.
These norms could have evolved with previous technology developments, and there may be many retrospective examples of where the ‘ideals’ did not exist (good or bad).
The point being, is that the concept of an ideal is in part ‘in the eye of the beholder’, which will probably be related to the task.
Thus, we may be attempting to use modern technology for a task and with techniques (including training) which are inappropriate. It is not that these aspects or the technology are wrong, they are different.
I’m not seeking a right or wrong view, but a balance in that if the aviating task were to be reconsidered then the design may be perfectly adequate, but this would require a different approach to training and operating.
I hope that there is a half-way position in these views because the technology already exists. Thus the training and operations, the mindset, has to adapt to what we have. And for this perhaps we should look at what goes right in operations, how the human adapts or not, and from those aspects seek more focused improvements.
These norms could have evolved with previous technology developments, and there may be many retrospective examples of where the ‘ideals’ did not exist (good or bad).
The point being, is that the concept of an ideal is in part ‘in the eye of the beholder’, which will probably be related to the task.
Thus, we may be attempting to use modern technology for a task and with techniques (including training) which are inappropriate. It is not that these aspects or the technology are wrong, they are different.
I’m not seeking a right or wrong view, but a balance in that if the aviating task were to be reconsidered then the design may be perfectly adequate, but this would require a different approach to training and operating.
I hope that there is a half-way position in these views because the technology already exists. Thus the training and operations, the mindset, has to adapt to what we have. And for this perhaps we should look at what goes right in operations, how the human adapts or not, and from those aspects seek more focused improvements.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: -
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
safetypee,
have you ever considered a politician's career?
Yes, let's start with flattery and then completely disagree with the message that the previous poster wanted to convey, without ever saying "no".
may be? Or maybe not? Please name some examples. Same question can be asked to almost every phrase of the post.
The original phrase is "beauty is in the eye of the beholder". Beauty is something that cannot be measured, it's just a matter of personal preference. Here we are speaking not about beauty, but about concrete technical tools to better perform a concrete task, and tools can be compared based on objective criteria rather than personal preference, so the proverb is completely out of place. But it surely sounds good and very convincing, doesn't it?
Let me rephrase this: we have modern technology, and "modern" means "cool", so we apply the "cool" technology to the task of aviating. Unfortunately, it turns out that the task and techniques (including training) are somehow inappropriate for modern technology. Therefore, the task of aviating needs to be redefined, to better suit modern technology 
It may seem funny at first, but there do seem to be many people who really think this way, here and elsewhere
This is partly true, because the huge investments have been made and things cannot be changed overnight. But at the same time, efforts must be made to improve the technology, not just adapt to it because it exists. And the first step to solve a problem is to acknowledge that the problem exists. Without this crucial step, the problem will exist indefinitely.
have you ever considered a politician's career?
whilst acknowledging the excellence in your views
and there may be many retrospective examples of where the ‘ideals’ did not exist (good or bad).
The point being, is that the concept of an ideal is in part ‘in the eye of the beholder’, which will probably be related to the task.
Thus, we may be attempting to use modern technology for a task and with techniques (including training) which are inappropriate. It is not that these aspects or the technology are wrong, they are different.
I’m not seeking a right or wrong view, but a balance in that if the aviating task were to be reconsidered then the design may be perfectly adequate, but this would require a different approach to training and operating.
I’m not seeking a right or wrong view, but a balance in that if the aviating task were to be reconsidered then the design may be perfectly adequate, but this would require a different approach to training and operating.
It may seem funny at first, but there do seem to be many people who really think this way, here and elsewhere
I hope that there is a half-way position in these views because the technology already exists.
Originally Posted by roulishollandais
The engineers team who concepted the ACARS system was/is really EXCELLENT. Much much better than the team who built the control system. Informative, reliable, working as designed, simple, cheap, always well accepted by the pilot, etc. (all the qualities!) This team should redesign and correct the FCS for AIRBUS with all the dangerous garbage addenda. (please no graceful degradation only direct informations).
Originally Posted by roulissholandais
I think Airbus pilots are bad informed and need to (re)learn physic of flight.
Originally Posted by roullisholandais
Since when and why did the flight test pilots no more stall airliners ?
Originally Posted by Machinbirds
What you are flying can be made better.....once the engineers begin to realize what kind of traps they have created inadvertently.
Originally Posted by TTex600
I can't begin to believe that the design team that came up with the AB FBW system (w/protections) intended to make things harder than necessary, nor that they would knowingly design a confusing system.
Originally Posted by TTex600
Therefore, the confusing and harder than necessary situations they created were a mistake.
Originally Posted by TTex600
My only question would be: will they now correct their mistake
Originally Posted by TTex600
Flat panel displays that require interpretation vs recognition. (I can recognize a specific speed, say 250kts on a round dial by noticing where the needle points - no thought necessary - while a tape requires more attention.)
Originally Posted by TTex600
An attention DEMANDING ECAM system.
Originally Posted by TTex600
Controls with no feedback.
Originally Posted by TTex600
An airframe that does not trim for speed, but for flight path.
Originally Posted by TTex600
An institutional reliance, almost religious reliance on FD's - in training and operations........and FD's that are allowed to provide misleading data.
Originally Posted by TTex600
Warning systems (in combination with ECAM) that adds to sensory overload vs providing help for focus when in sensory overload.
Originally Posted by TTex600
A manufacturers training program that assumes competence and yet demands compliance.
Originally Posted by TTex600
But at least the little Boeings don't add to the confusion.
Originally Posted by safetypee
And for this perhaps we should look at what goes right in operations, how the human adapts or not, and from those aspects seek more focused improvements.
Originally Posted by ap08
Let me rephrase this: we have modern technology, and "modern" means "cool", so we apply the "cool" technology to the task of aviating.
Originally Posted by ap08
Unfortunately, it turns out that the task and techniques (including training) are somehow inappropriate for modern technology. Therefore, the task of aviating needs to be redefined, to better suit modern technology
It may seem funny at first, but there do seem to be many people who really think this way, here and elsewhere
It may seem funny at first, but there do seem to be many people who really think this way, here and elsewhere
The whole point of AF447 is that it once again has proved for ignoranti that technology can not and is not designed to replace airmanship! Pilots are supposed to take over from auto-pilot anytime and fly safely if not with the same precision! Those pilots believing BS that technological advances changed flying by making basic skills obsolete are liable to get very surprised and possibly killed.
Originally Posted by ap08
And the first step to solve a problem is to acknowledge that the problem exists. Without this crucial step, the problem will exist indefinitely.
So, gentlemen, you have elicited the reaction. Happy now? May we have reasonable discussion back?
Last edited by Clandestino; 3rd Aug 2012 at 23:05.
ap, too kind.
The objective was to avoid selecting a specific view as ‘truth’; keeping an open mind, considering another view, dealing with reality.
Truth – ‘in the eye of the beholder’, scientifically is the currently agreed, peer reviewed opinion; however, there could be local truths for expediency which may be the case here – good for debate.
“I prefer steam gauges over tapes …” yes, so do I. But in a flight directed, autothrust environment the tape is sufficient, do we understand why.
Conversely, try a night MEL (no autothrust, no FD) takeoff with engine failure. Then the tape may be less than ideal, even hazardous. Has this been identified, what mitigation has been applied: – prohibit these MEL items?
Much of this comes down to task – the context of events; these are rarely clear-cut.
So yes acknowledge that there are problems, define them and their characteristics. Similarly look at the successes, the benefits, and the safety record.
Those who wish to judge the ideal – a truth, look at the balance of problems vs successful safe capability.
In AF 447 we have one very surprising and unfortunate accident – we must learn from it. There were preceding events which did not result in accidents; why?
Was this man or machine, or circumstance?
A previous post cited luck; then was it good luck or bad luck?
In general we don’t think about issues particularly clearly, perhaps a facet of modern life, but this limitation should not dictate a particular course of action – we should consider a wider view.
The objective was to avoid selecting a specific view as ‘truth’; keeping an open mind, considering another view, dealing with reality.
Truth – ‘in the eye of the beholder’, scientifically is the currently agreed, peer reviewed opinion; however, there could be local truths for expediency which may be the case here – good for debate.
“I prefer steam gauges over tapes …” yes, so do I. But in a flight directed, autothrust environment the tape is sufficient, do we understand why.
Conversely, try a night MEL (no autothrust, no FD) takeoff with engine failure. Then the tape may be less than ideal, even hazardous. Has this been identified, what mitigation has been applied: – prohibit these MEL items?
Much of this comes down to task – the context of events; these are rarely clear-cut.
So yes acknowledge that there are problems, define them and their characteristics. Similarly look at the successes, the benefits, and the safety record.
Those who wish to judge the ideal – a truth, look at the balance of problems vs successful safe capability.
In AF 447 we have one very surprising and unfortunate accident – we must learn from it. There were preceding events which did not result in accidents; why?
Was this man or machine, or circumstance?
A previous post cited luck; then was it good luck or bad luck?
In general we don’t think about issues particularly clearly, perhaps a facet of modern life, but this limitation should not dictate a particular course of action – we should consider a wider view.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clandestino
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTex600
"An airframe that does not trim for speed, but for flight path."
Clandestino, lecturing an A320 Captain:
"It is important to tell the difference between the airframe and flight control systems but anyway what's wrong with maintaining the flight path? Isn't it what the pilot is normally supposed to do, it's just easier with autotrim?"
The pilot is never supposed to trim to maintain the flight path, except in Direct Law, and that is the point. Neither does he feel the lessening of his Pitch effort. Trim is supplied not to make things easier, it isn't hard in the first place....
Trim is supplied automatically, to ease the stresses on the control surfaces, and to save fuel, read money. Less drag. Just like fuel in the tail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TTex600
"An airframe that does not trim for speed, but for flight path."
Clandestino, lecturing an A320 Captain:
"It is important to tell the difference between the airframe and flight control systems but anyway what's wrong with maintaining the flight path? Isn't it what the pilot is normally supposed to do, it's just easier with autotrim?"
The pilot is never supposed to trim to maintain the flight path, except in Direct Law, and that is the point. Neither does he feel the lessening of his Pitch effort. Trim is supplied not to make things easier, it isn't hard in the first place....
Trim is supplied automatically, to ease the stresses on the control surfaces, and to save fuel, read money. Less drag. Just like fuel in the tail.
Last edited by Lyman; 3rd Aug 2012 at 23:21.
Originally Posted by safetypee
“I prefer steam gauges over tapes …” yes, so do I. But in a flight directed, autothrust environment the tape is sufficient, do we understand why.
Since "I" has been mentioned a lot, let me join the fray. I have flown round dials and I have flown tapes. I prefer well paid job with sensible roster and don't give an ATR about the dials. I can fly manual raw data on both without any problem.
Was this man or machine, or circumstance?
Originally Posted by safetypee
In general we don’t think about issues particularly clearly, perhaps a facet of modern life, but this limitation should not dictate a particular course of action – we should consider a wider view.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original criticism levelled at the digital MFD display (as opposed to "steam gauges") was based on the idea that it was harder to read a number than to detect a trend on a digital display - this came directly from Asseline's defence team regarding his misinterpretation of the RA display.
As such, that comparison did not take the "tape" display (from which it is as easy to determine a trend as is is on the old-fashioned displays) into account at all.
As such, that comparison did not take the "tape" display (from which it is as easy to determine a trend as is is on the old-fashioned displays) into account at all.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No - in that case he was let down by his employers (whose briefing material was woeful), but nevertheless was lulled into a false sense of security by believing he knew the aircraft and the systems better than he in fact did.
Why more so than pilots on other types? As far as I'm aware Airbus has made no claim to have overcome the law of physics! The idea that Airbus FBW goes hand-in-hand with automation with the intent of de-skilling pilots is very much untrue.
I don't understand what you're getting at here. Automation (of the flight management type) in the FBW Airbus types is no different to that of any other contemporary airliner.
But the Airbus FBW and FMS design was not carried out by "computer guys" and management alone. The man with the final sign-off on the system was universally regarded as one of the best and most respected test and certification pilots to come out of the UK, and you're besmirching his memory to claim otherwise.
I think Airbus pilots are bad informed and need to (re)learn physic of flight.
And automation engineers have to learn about flying and rapid decisions.
Public was made with around 30 persons in charge of computer divisions of the greatest french companies...
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 4th Aug 2012 at 00:39.
Clandestino;
Great responses, thank you.
The ridiculous comments regarding the Airbus design is the reason I, and I suspect a number of other former contributors, have lost interest in this thread.
The fact that the Airbus has accumulated millions of hours of successful, accident-free flight and that there is a similar fatal accident rate between Boeing and Airbus types has not helped deeper understanding especially among some aviators here means this is not about learning, it is about prejudice and for that there is no point in discussion.
As always, the criticisms come from those who don't fly or who've never flown the type so they regurgitate the prejudices they've read from others who similarly either don't fly at all or don't fly the Airbus. Sadly, there is nothing that can be said that will alter perceptions or understanding in such an atmosphere.
Great responses, thank you.
The ridiculous comments regarding the Airbus design is the reason I, and I suspect a number of other former contributors, have lost interest in this thread.
The fact that the Airbus has accumulated millions of hours of successful, accident-free flight and that there is a similar fatal accident rate between Boeing and Airbus types has not helped deeper understanding especially among some aviators here means this is not about learning, it is about prejudice and for that there is no point in discussion.
As always, the criticisms come from those who don't fly or who've never flown the type so they regurgitate the prejudices they've read from others who similarly either don't fly at all or don't fly the Airbus. Sadly, there is nothing that can be said that will alter perceptions or understanding in such an atmosphere.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I absolutely and utterly agree with every point you've made, it would appear that CONF iture at least (less prevalent on this thread that the Tech Log equivalent) is a current FBW Airbus line pilot.
Last edited by DozyWannabe; 4th Aug 2012 at 01:18.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great responses, thank you.
The ridiculous comments regarding the Airbus design is the reason I, and I suspect a number of other former contributors, have lost interest in this thread.
The fact that the Airbus has accumulated millions of hours of successful, accident-free flight and that there is a similar fatal accident rate between Boeing and Airbus types has not helped deeper understanding especially among some aviators here means this is not about learning, it is about prejudice and for that there is no point in discussion.
As always, the criticisms come from those who don't fly or who've never flown the type so they regurgitate the prejudices they've read from others who similarly either don't fly at all or don't fly the Airbus. Sadly, there is nothing that can be said that will alter perceptions or understanding in such an atmosphere.
The ridiculous comments regarding the Airbus design is the reason I, and I suspect a number of other former contributors, have lost interest in this thread.
The fact that the Airbus has accumulated millions of hours of successful, accident-free flight and that there is a similar fatal accident rate between Boeing and Airbus types has not helped deeper understanding especially among some aviators here means this is not about learning, it is about prejudice and for that there is no point in discussion.
As always, the criticisms come from those who don't fly or who've never flown the type so they regurgitate the prejudices they've read from others who similarly either don't fly at all or don't fly the Airbus. Sadly, there is nothing that can be said that will alter perceptions or understanding in such an atmosphere.
He likes both the AB models and the Boeings. I asked him the "trick question," which is, "What if the captain had walked back onto the flight deck of AF447 in an aircraft that had conventional control columns, thus seeing them pulled full back?"
His response, "That difference may have very well saved the flight."
Last edited by aterpster; 4th Aug 2012 at 01:18.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I asked him the "trick question," which is, "What if the captain had walked back onto the flight deck of AF447 in an aircraft that had conventional control columns, thus seeing them pulled full back?"
His response, "That difference may have very well saved the flight."
His response, "That difference may have very well saved the flight."
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is absolutely nothing religious about pilots' training. Nothing is dogmatic, everything is verifiable. Warning that flight directors will lead astray if in wrong mode is included in every training, as is inculcating the habit to constantly check FMA for correct mode and selected values. It is entertaining to read the outsiders' misconception on the way airline pilots do their job but it gets a bit annoying when such notions are stubbornly touted to be true.
In navy .. the simplest solution is to proceed the route (or check) by using the GPS
(can fail)
The steering autopilot also use it to follow the programmed route
Nevertheless .. the only instruments is recognized as valid are the sextant .. a tide table and a stopwatch (never fail)
You can (must) use them for verify if the GPS give you accurate position
They are always a board
Who use it today ... ??
Look no further than 36 cases of UAS on 330/340 that ended uneventfully to see how ludicrous is to make sweeping statements based on just one case.
Not fully investigated .. no research group on human factors .. etc. ..
AF447 has produced 228 dead and we know what followed ....
Last edited by jcjeant; 4th Aug 2012 at 02:35.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DFW
Age: 61
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by DozyWannabe
Did you then follow up with examples of stall (including Birgenair 301, AF90 and others) where the control column position was not noted?
aTerpster stated that his AB qualified friend thought that column position might have helped the Captain determine the problem on his return. You quote accidents where both pilots were exposed to something and neither understood the problem. I agree that SS's are no more likely to be involved in one of these type accidents than control columns, but you could at least discuss aterpsters comment as it was made instead of answering the question/point you wanted to hear. Come on man.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 3,093
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@TTex600:
It was an honest question - I'm interested to know on what basis aterpster's friend and colleague based that assertion.
What I'm trying to get a handle on here is the level of received wisdom on the subject - nothing more, nothing less.
It was an honest question - I'm interested to know on what basis aterpster's friend and colleague based that assertion.
What I'm trying to get a handle on here is the level of received wisdom on the subject - nothing more, nothing less.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The position of a yoke is available to both pilots. The flying pilot has both position, and feel. At the risk of diminishing the argument con, even if the stick is visible to both pilots, position does not indicate Pitch, and the flying pilot has neither position OR feel to instruct his scan...No? Accidents have happened in both formats, that provides conclusion, how?
In the 447 accident, the stick was out of sight, the two non flying pilots could not suss the stick, let alone it's position, and it is clear from the CVR. Yet you bring up other accidents? Your pitching straw, 447 clearly was affected adversely by stick visibility, yet you draw in unrelated data? You also slag a statement made that is presented sincerely as fact, with the evidence in front of everybody that supports the conclusion...frankly , the PFs statement is conclusive.
.Oozlum
Denial...
In the 447 accident, the stick was out of sight, the two non flying pilots could not suss the stick, let alone it's position, and it is clear from the CVR. Yet you bring up other accidents? Your pitching straw, 447 clearly was affected adversely by stick visibility, yet you draw in unrelated data? You also slag a statement made that is presented sincerely as fact, with the evidence in front of everybody that supports the conclusion...frankly , the PFs statement is conclusive.
.Oozlum
Denial...
Last edited by Lyman; 4th Aug 2012 at 03:56.
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Bermuda Triangle
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have only flown Boeing's (all but 707, 777 and 787), so I have no knowlegde of the "laws" in the Airbus. I just don´t beleive that it is possible that two professionals with a respected airline can totally screw up. There must be something else.
If I were the captain, I would never had left the cockpit unless I trusted the other guys completely. So if the case was that the pilots were dumb, our industry wil not gain anything. Very sad. Flag carrier of France and a state of the art of an airplane.
This logging of who goes to rest and when, does nothing for safety. I rest better in my own seat than in the back where people run around and I would rather nap in the observer's seat than leaving the cockpit.
"Cruise pilots" was a bad idea from the beginning. There always has to be one captain every second of the flight. But it is cheaper with two co-pilots. So, unless otherwise convinced, the bean counters are to blame.
If I were the captain, I would never had left the cockpit unless I trusted the other guys completely. So if the case was that the pilots were dumb, our industry wil not gain anything. Very sad. Flag carrier of France and a state of the art of an airplane.
This logging of who goes to rest and when, does nothing for safety. I rest better in my own seat than in the back where people run around and I would rather nap in the observer's seat than leaving the cockpit.
"Cruise pilots" was a bad idea from the beginning. There always has to be one captain every second of the flight. But it is cheaper with two co-pilots. So, unless otherwise convinced, the bean counters are to blame.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Grassy Valley
Posts: 2,074
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you insist, I'll point you to the CVR, of course...
"Climb, then....". "but I have been pulling for some time..." synched with it, the attitude trace...
You could ask for another sim ride?
The text from CVR doesn't suffice for you?
Sorry folks, one has nibbled on the oozlum bird....... Phtooey....
"Climb, then....". "but I have been pulling for some time..." synched with it, the attitude trace...
You could ask for another sim ride?
The text from CVR doesn't suffice for you?
Sorry folks, one has nibbled on the oozlum bird....... Phtooey....
Last edited by Lyman; 4th Aug 2012 at 04:19.
Svhar
Agree whole heartily but you are forgetting commercial wisdom and the fact that the captain was French and his bird was down the back....French risk management!
Agree whole heartily but you are forgetting commercial wisdom and the fact that the captain was French and his bird was down the back....French risk management!
