|
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
(Post 10307090)
@winemaker: it would appear that low cost airlines (or a number of them) do just enough training to get by the regulators' requirements. The difference between currency, and recency, and proficiency is lost on the profit driven philosophy of a low cost airline's management and ownership. So while your point on pitch and power certainly fits how I was trained to fly, how pilots are trained, kept current, and retain proficiency (across their entire area of responsibility) in the year 2018 is not a fixed value. It varies with corporate culture, among other things. There isn't a single standard ... and more's the pity.
|
Originally Posted by Winemaker
(Post 10307086)
Is this a training issue in that it seems the most important part, keeping the plane flying, has become secondary?
|
Originally Posted by ZFT
(Post 10307098)
It's a pity you added the words low cost to your post because otherwise IMHO it is spot on! Standards should be determined and enforced by the regulators. Globally, they fail dismally.
Sure, we need to know what happened, and why, and make changes to ensure it doesn't happen again. That's the way the industry works (and why it's gotten so much better than it was even 20 years ago). But don't loose track of how far we've come. BTW gums, ignore the critics. Most of us know who you are, value your inputs and piloting accomplishments, and don't mind you being slightly eccentric (you've earned it). |
Per your logic world should be perfect and every pilot should always respond in a most efficient way. |
Originally Posted by tdracer
(Post 10307121)
Oh, come on now - if "Globally, they fail dismally", how do you explain the simple fact that commercial aviation has never been safer? With the growth in commercial aviation, if we had the same accident rate now that they had in the 1970s, we'd be having a major accident at least once a week. Heck, even the Indonesian accident rate - as poor as it is compared to most of the world, is still better than what was considered good 50 years ago. I regularly visit Indonesia, and I still consider flying there to be safer than taking a bus or boat.
Sure, we need to know what happened, and why, and make changes to ensure it doesn't happen again. That's the way the industry works (and why it's gotten so much better than it was even 20 years ago). But don't loose track of how far we've come. BTW gums, ignore the critics. Most of us know who you are, value your inputs and piloting accomplishments, and don't mind you being slightly eccentric (you've earned it). No argument from me. Aviation today is incredibly safe just about everywhere and this is testament to just about every facet involved. My comment referred to the great variation in applied standards, that are (or are not) enforced, even with the major regulators and I stand by my comment that "Globally they fail miserably" |
Maybe it’s the planes got safer?
I can’t seem to copy paste but above the post questions why safety has apparently improved so drastically... Maybe the automatics, etc - those things that seem to be so maligned - are the reason? Certainly blind trust in them is flawed, but in the 99.9% of cases everyone goes home happy and we hear nothing more. But the tiny percentage of times, when something really unusual happens and the crew get it wrong (whether unknowingly or just missing something) we want to tear into the very systems that worked so well the rest of the time. My bet is the automatics are far more beneficial than the edge cases where things go wrong. The important but painful point is statistic are sometimes brutal. Yes, any crash is terrible, but those that didn’t happen are just as important. A conundrum. -GY |
28:20 into the video,
|
If aviation today is indeed safer not because we have pilots but in spite of us having pilots. And the machines can be made better but the pilots cannot....then the day comes sooner when there will be no pilots. Because pilots will have by then lost mastery of their art while also losing full control of their aircraft by design of the aircraft makers. For they have been judged by regulators and plane makers to be the weakest link. |
Originally Posted by armchairpilot94116
(Post 10307156)
If aviation today is indeed safer not because we have
... For they [HUMANS] have been judged by regulators and plane makers to be the weakest link. |
Originally Posted by gums
(Post 10307092)
Meanwhile we wait for news and maybe another bulletin from Boeing or the U.S. and other country aviation agencies. out, |
Originally Posted by AGBagb
(Post 10307285)
BTW, do we know whether the Boeing Bulletin was based on the early results from the recovered FDR, or are they based on details of the previous incidents with this a/c and/or this type?
https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-re...ts?item=130327 Excerpt: Boeing is providing support and technical assistance to the Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee and other government authorities responsible for the investigation into Lion Air flight 610. The Indonesian National Transportation Safety Committee has indicated that Lion Air flight 610 experienced erroneous input from one of its AOA (Angle of Attack) sensors. Whenever appropriate, Boeing, as part of its usual processes, issues bulletins or makes recommendations regarding the operation of its aircraft. On November 6, 2018, Boeing issued an Operations Manual Bulletin (OMB) directing operators to existing flight crew procedures to address circumstances where there is erroneous input from an AOA sensor. |
Two excerpts from From 'How Airliners Fly' by Julien Evans:
The debate continues, as it has done for the last few decades, as to the degree to which pilots should allow the ever more capable automatic systems to take control. Should the aircraft be allowed to fly themselves with minimal pilot input in order to maximise precision and efficiency? But will this policy reduce basic piloting skills, which might be demanded when the automatic systems malfunction, or when circumstances arise which are beyond their capabilities? The human mind brings to the flight deck the element which machines and computers lack - judgement. Will pilots be able to fly their aircraft without the assistance of autopilots and autothrottles when necessary if they never get the chance to practise these skills during normal operation? A related factor is that a pilot whose job is merely to watch the aircraft fly itself is unlikely to be as well motivated as one who can get their hands on the controls now and then. Designers of aircraft and airline managers must address the issue of how much and under what conditions pilots should be allowed, or indeed encouraged, to fly their aircraft manually. It is likely that compared to a mere aircraft monitor, a skilled, motivated pilot will always make a greater overall contribution to flight safety. |
Originally Posted by A Squared
(Post 10307329)
I would expect that Boeing would be *extremely* reluctant to draw technical conclusions that specific from an ATC conversation, whcih by nature would be fairly ambiguous about what exactly the problem was at a technical level. I haven't seen a transcript, but I'd be extremely surprised if it contains: "Pan Pan Pan, Lion XXX experiencing control difficulties due to Speed Trim System receiving bad Angle of Attack data!!!!!!!"
|
Originally Posted by Chu Chu
(Post 10307380)
And if the pilots really did say that, it would be a pretty strong indication that it was not the problem -- the outcome of the flight suggests that the pilots hadn't correctly identified the problem, whatever it was.
|
The Boeing philosophy is to have the pilot fly the aircraft where as Airbus want the automation to do it. Regardless of which manufacture's aircraft you are flying, the pilot needs to be able to deal with control system malfunctions. Engine fire/failure is regularly practiced and tested, as are RTOs and TCAS, perhaps stick and rudder ability needs to be looked at as well. Accidents such as this one highlight a lack of basic flying skills which is sadly becoming more common as pilots move straight from basic training onto highly automated aircraft.
Everything is fine as long as the automatics behave themselves and nothing occurs which isn't covered in the manuals, though in this case it seems it was covered by a laid down procedure. This could have been prevented if any one link in the accident chain had been broken, failures in equipment, maintenance and flight crew all coincided and the chain held. |
Originally Posted by krismiler
(Post 10307406)
The Boeing philosophy is to have the pilot fly the aircraft where as Airbus want the automation to do it. Regardless of which manufacture's aircraft you are flying, the pilot needs to be able to deal with control system malfunctions. Engine fire/failure is regularly practiced and tested, as are RTOs and TCAS, perhaps stick and rudder ability needs to be looked at as well. Accidents such as this one highlight a lack of basic flying skills which is sadly becoming more common as pilots move straight from basic training onto highly automated aircraft.
Everything is fine as long as the automatics behave themselves and nothing occurs which isn't covered in the manuals, though in this case it seems it was covered by a laid down procedure. This could have been prevented if any one link in the accident chain had been broken, failures in equipment, maintenance and flight crew all coincided and the chain held. The armchair coach pretty much always wins the game, but even with clear hindsight I don’t believe anyone had pinned the exact cause of the crash prior to the Boeing AD. All I can say is it was a good job the FDR was found, because that was what let the cat out the bag with respect to this being AOA sensor related and linked to the STS. - GY |
Originally Posted by WillFlyForCheese
(Post 10306720)
unless they find the CVR (seems odd it's not been found yet)
CVR No Longer Transmitting Signals SATURDAY, 10 NOVEMBER, 2018, 21:16 WIB TEMPO.CO, Jakarta - The National Search and Rescue Agency (Basarnas) announced that it has officially stopped its search for the remaining victims of the Lion Air flight JT 610 that crashed at Tanjung Karawang. However, the search for the airplane’s missing cockpit voice recorder (CVR) will continue until an undetermined time. “We will search for it up to a one-kilometer radius,” said the head of the National Transportation Safety Commission (KNKT), Soerjanto Tjahjonoat JICT II, North Jakarta, on November 10. The search for the missing CVR is hampered by the fact that unlike the week before, this device is no longer transmitting signals to the search team. “The ping signal can no longer be heard now,” said Soerjanto. However, the recovery team is set to utilize an ROV equipped with the needed features to search for the missing CVR that is believed to be buried under the seabed. “The device that we prepared is able to detect objects buried 4-meters under the bottom of the ocean,” he explained. The ROV itself, according to Soerjanto, was lent by a foreign country that happened to be docking in East Java and is currently on its way to Jakarta and will be operated in the Lion Air flight JT 610 recovery operation next week. |
Originally Posted by ZFT
(Post 10307098)
It's a pity you added the words low cost to your post because otherwise IMHO it is spot on! Standards should be determined and enforced by the regulators. Globally, they fail dismally.
FWIW, I have a number of close friends who fly with American major airlines (we all share a military background, and some of us were in training squadrons together as instructors). While they are not all that pleased with the training opportunities, versus box checking, I get the idea that they each have a corporate culture where training is a bit more than a box check. But maybe that's getting worse, not better, as time goes on. @Golden Rivit: thanks for the link, nice refresher. I note that the training film is dated in 1997. |
If only the warning to the pilots had been "AoA disagree - A/P off, STS off" or something precise and useful. And Feel Diff Press should NOT alarm.
|
According to the FAA Emergency AD, an erroneous Angle of Attack (AOA) input, among other symptoms, can result in indications of:
• IAS DISAGREE alert. • ALT DISAGREE alert. I'm wondering why an erroneous Angle of Attack (AOA) input would cause those alerts. Is it because the pitot-static position error corrections require an AoA input? Secondly, I wonder what really occured on previous flights. Was it really an UAS situation or were above alerts incorrectly diagnosed as a pitot-static system problem? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 03:00. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.