If PIA hope to resume flying into EU airspace, they will undoubtedly have to produce evidence that a significant improvement has occurred, and the necessary standards will be maintained and subject to monitoring by EASA on a regular basis.

More than just one Munro to climb?

vilas

Until machines can think for themselves, the human factors issues will move from the liveware in the cockpit to the liveware in the software/hardware development labs... We saw this with the advent of the FBW generation of A/C in the late 80's. You can have the best technology in the world but surround it with poor processes and/or excellent processes not followed, and the technology becomes a witness to the incident.

True, but you can fix faulty software written by erring humans. Not so much with erring humans killing their passengers directly in numerous ways both completely new and well know for a century.

You can develop both, but one of them is constantly trying to self-implode. The software does not forget to run coded sub-routines, humans tend to ignore lessons learned. At the same time, modern-day SOPs are already well algorithmized. All that is needed is an operator who/that will follow the script without ommisions due to lack of attention, guilt inflicted denial of facts, and egotistic creativity.

Even if you did find a solid, proper material and built a pool of trustworthy professionals, they will go retire, seek out better pastures or you need to let them go at the next downturn. And you start over and over again.

One of the best advices for aviators you'll find appeared in a post from hans brinker in the command upgrade SIM thread: "Do not do anything surprising". Software is capable of achieving that, live people are not.

Ask the crew of QF72 if software isn't capable of doing something surprising... I have been involved with Software for many years and have lost count of how many times I've seen it do something surprising. It isn't surprising to the S/W as it's doing as it was told but it's surprising to the human as he/she wasn't expecting it to do what it did! That's the human element in software, hence my original comments. The more complex the S/W is. the more opportunities for surprises.. :-) Oh and throw hardware anomalies into the mix and it gets even more complex.

Though only SLF, a strong opinion follows (oh right, I'm also an attorney, so . . .)

We're communicating over the internet's pathways which undeniably have advanced rapidly in a comparatively short period of time. With great benefits.

And great problems along the pathways traveled. Criminals exploit the internet; there's a bit of smut here and there; hostilities and even outright threats pop up from time to time; and of course, there are vulnerabilities to old technology, decidedly earthside-bound, like electricity generating and distribution networks (not to berate an impersonal internet, but also there are vulnerabilities to the very same information-intensive computer and communication systems and networks which little things like hospitals and other public utilities (e.g., Chicago Center) rely upon all day and all of the night). Why this is relevant is....

Because the same logic which tells us that software and cockpit automation takes the errant human off of the controls of the civil aviation aircraft overlooks, or even ignores, the existence of potential for unwanted trouble being caused by the human programmers and coders. Humans are said to be failure-prone (which is kind of, undeniable). Why then is it assumed that the coding and algorithms and so forth will be: Pristine! Perfect! No Back Doors, Trap Doors or Stuck Exit Doors, Not Ever!!

Besides, I am still waiting for one of the "automation" gurus, or even mavens, to demonstrably prove that, just to take a probably fairly mundane or even simple example, that a set of algorithms can be written today, in 3 years, or anything not "futuristic" with regard to timeframe, which could fully account for safe operational necessities of the Delta flight over LA which dumped fuel and caused at least a publicity uproar when some of the fuel visited a schoolyard. I have said, demonstrably prove, because, I would want to see what courtroom types know as demonstrative evidence. Show me the algorithm, show me it works in a full-fidelity simulator in which positively zero of the operational variables have been, you know, slightly rounded off to make the coders' jobs look classier.

No one should or can deny automation is increasing. But the inconsistency between scoring the humans wearing three- and four-stripes on the one hand, but lofting (or is it lifting) coders into rarified air of perfect performance, just seems too much. Oh by the way, Happy Labor Day (computers, this is NOT for you).

Willie Nelson

Korean Airlines was in a similar situation in 20 years ago. A completely dysfunctional culture with no accountability for crew actions eventually had consequences that could not be ignored if they wanted to continue flying outside of Korean airspace. A team from Delta Airlines was brought in an the result was pretty profound changes. Korean Airlines is not perfect but it is light years ahead of where it was. Like the old saying "Sometimes things have to get worse before they can get better", maybe this accident will the catalyst for change as the circumstances are so egregious.

If I recall from the time (and as I have also mentioned earlier in this thread), the Korean report was "leaked" and made sober reading. I have a lot of respect from them as they cleaned up their act and frankly realized it had to be done, there were no half-measures. As for PIA, suspect nothing of the sort will ever occur, too many intertwined interests that threaten the status quo, cultural issues will never allow anything of this sort ever to see the light of day. By all means quote Korea (a good example) but those that expect a Korean style epiphany will be waiting a damned long time because it won't happen.

The leaked KAL LOSA audit is legendary, which makes me suspect that some of it at least may be doubtful, who knows, their remediation is also legendary. My understanding is that they were facing the likely prospect of being uninsurable they got in some expertise and cross cultural experience to break open the closed, face saving, practices and extant culture.

I’m not sure if things need to get really worse before they get better. Surely this is where regulators could play a useful role in being proactively engaged in airline safety management processes rather than passively reactive to these horrific inexcusable crashes that, let’s be honest, are some of the more common phenomena in the current iteration of modern crash comics, think of Garuda’s Jogjakarta crash as an example.

Willie Nelson

Any idea where somebody could get a copy of that file? Wasn't able to find it on google.

unworry

The Garmin safe return is an emergency tool based on existing technology , I have no doubt that a more advanced version that will include vacating the runway , taxi and parking is not far away , however certifying an emergency tool is far easier that a standard feature with paying pax on the back . I am rather a believer that the future will be on Single man ops augmented with full automation and a man on the ground supervising the whole thing for more aircraft .
Time will tell, the Covid crisis might accelerate or delay the whole thing depending on which side of the fence the power will be.

https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/stor...-mobility.html - it's already way ahead

Oh yes, great plans with Airbus . the problem is that this technology will be expensive and was driven on pre Covid-19 thinking , which you find on the first page of the site link you gave : Covid -19 has already changed that .
That said , one old management sentence keep on coming back in my thoughts these days :
" Do not waste the great opportunities a good crisis gives you"

Thanks a bunch!

It was a great read, if a little dated. Does anyone remember the KAL pilot who gained his IR on an aircraft that had no engines, because it was in maintenance?

WillowRun 6-3

Actually. thats not correct: The Internet Pathways you refer to are (almost by definition) unchanged from the original DoD TCP/IP specifications from the mid 1970's.
The Internet infrastructure is fundamentally insecure. Many corporate and private networks have added layers of security, but the internet backbone is something of a provinciaL Wild West outpost.
As a Cirrus instructor I'm well aware of Safe Return, the autonomous autoland. It's impressive; and based on 2018 processing power. It works (aside from ATC blind broadcasts) in isolation. It is one thing to select a GA Airport; quite another to land safely in a busy traffic pattern.
I love my day job seat in the A320; but the 1980's processing power afforded to the jet is great for envelope protection and flight automation. It won't play nicely in the real world for a long time yet...

Tempos Fugit
 

ATC Watcher

Yeah, only time will tell, totally agree.

Bottom line is simple. KAL was a :mad: show and was close to losing access to primary international markets and insurance cover unless they cleaned up their act. The Delta guys came in and pointed out what they needed to do. To KAL’s credit they made some wrenching internal changes and fixed most of the issues. FWIW a friend of mine had first hand knowledge of KAL in the bad old days and almost everything in the report I referenced mirrors what he told me.

PAL and the Pakistani regulators are at a crossroads. They can effect structural change and adopt a modern flight safety culture or they keep on with cosmetic changes that everyone can see through while continuing to crash airplanes. If that is the way they chose to go then they will be a regional only airline going forward.