Passenger pontification and pilot safety
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,155
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
I must confess that, as far as the original post goes, I am with The Passenger. However, being an insider and a CRMI, I also know that in the incidents mentioned of which I have any knowledge, the pilots were at the end of a chain and had to sort out things to the best of their abilities. The root cause of the Air Transat running out of fuel started with engineers ignoring the maintenance manual and putting the wrong pipe on the engine, allthough, I grant you, the Captain also didn't use the checklists properly.
The Kegworth? Company procedures, according to one poster above, including the company culture that ensured that hosties didn't feel able to speak to the flight deck because the girls that started off with the company were slowly being removed and replaces with those who would behave in just that way. I know that because I was working out of EMA before it happened and knew a lot of Orion girls who came from there and knew what was going on - it was common knowledge at the time.
Tenerife? The KLM captain was normally engaged on training duties and had not done line flying for a while. He should not have been there without proper company briefing procedures.
I could go on, but for the remainder of cases, the big issue that people seem to have ignored that there are stupid pilots out there, just as there are stupid doctors and solicitors (and politicians!). Having a certificate doesn't mean that you make good decisions as a matter of course.
The Passenger has a right to be concerned, and as I am a frequent passenger I could easily find myself asking the same questions, especially when I know the background. And it will only get worse as most of the newcomers are frantically trying to take short cuts by learning answers to exam questions instead of learning the material. I find that a seriious CRM issue, as it indicates a certain attitude. However, that is off thread.
Phil
The Kegworth? Company procedures, according to one poster above, including the company culture that ensured that hosties didn't feel able to speak to the flight deck because the girls that started off with the company were slowly being removed and replaces with those who would behave in just that way. I know that because I was working out of EMA before it happened and knew a lot of Orion girls who came from there and knew what was going on - it was common knowledge at the time.
Tenerife? The KLM captain was normally engaged on training duties and had not done line flying for a while. He should not have been there without proper company briefing procedures.
I could go on, but for the remainder of cases, the big issue that people seem to have ignored that there are stupid pilots out there, just as there are stupid doctors and solicitors (and politicians!). Having a certificate doesn't mean that you make good decisions as a matter of course.
The Passenger has a right to be concerned, and as I am a frequent passenger I could easily find myself asking the same questions, especially when I know the background. And it will only get worse as most of the newcomers are frantically trying to take short cuts by learning answers to exam questions instead of learning the material. I find that a seriious CRM issue, as it indicates a certain attitude. However, that is off thread.
Phil
Moderator
Phil, that is precisely one of the main reasons why I have encouraged the thread ... I would go so far as to suggest that you are spot on the thread's importance ... the methodology behind and philosophy of decision making (in this case for continuation of flight following a systems failure) .... the specific story of the 747 is just the vehicle for the thread's concern.
My thoughts ..
(a) the crew is (should be ?) well trained, competent, etc., but, potentially, is always fallable .. which is why we need checks and balances to protect us from our own human failings
(b) the crew is part of a system which, in the ideal world, ought to be stronger and better than the sum of the parts
(c) the system is never perfect as evidenced by our constant tinkering with it to iron out the bugs
(d) commercial pressures are getting harder and harder for the technocrats to fight and many of us have a great concern at the dumbing down of the technical crew base worldwide .. not saying that we are right in that concern .. but we have a concern nonetheless
(e) the passengers pay the rent .. so, whether we like it or not .. they have a right to question the system .. albeit often without detailed insider knowledge of just what goes on in here .. a bit like the medical patient's right to make an informed decision .. regardless of just how technically informed that decision really may be. As much as some of us might aspire to the paternalistic views of Sir Joh Bjelke Petersen (".. don't you worry about that ...") life just doesn't run that way any more ....
My thoughts ..
(a) the crew is (should be ?) well trained, competent, etc., but, potentially, is always fallable .. which is why we need checks and balances to protect us from our own human failings
(b) the crew is part of a system which, in the ideal world, ought to be stronger and better than the sum of the parts
(c) the system is never perfect as evidenced by our constant tinkering with it to iron out the bugs
(d) commercial pressures are getting harder and harder for the technocrats to fight and many of us have a great concern at the dumbing down of the technical crew base worldwide .. not saying that we are right in that concern .. but we have a concern nonetheless
(e) the passengers pay the rent .. so, whether we like it or not .. they have a right to question the system .. albeit often without detailed insider knowledge of just what goes on in here .. a bit like the medical patient's right to make an informed decision .. regardless of just how technically informed that decision really may be. As much as some of us might aspire to the paternalistic views of Sir Joh Bjelke Petersen (".. don't you worry about that ...") life just doesn't run that way any more ....
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: White Waltham, Prestwick & Calgary
Age: 72
Posts: 4,155
Likes: 0
Received 29 Likes
on
14 Posts
John - Taking your last point, I would not normally tell the taxi driver how to get around London, unless it is obvious that he is either dangerous or incompetent, at which point I reserve the right to step in with some wall-to-wall counselling.
Contrary to popular belief, your licence does not cover you for every situation you might encounter - rather, it gives you enough training to be able to make your own decisions, hopefully good ones, hence the importance of training.
I, too am concerned about technical training - I'm a helicopter TRE and it frightens me how many people are flying around having been taught on myth and legend.
phil
Contrary to popular belief, your licence does not cover you for every situation you might encounter - rather, it gives you enough training to be able to make your own decisions, hopefully good ones, hence the importance of training.
I, too am concerned about technical training - I'm a helicopter TRE and it frightens me how many people are flying around having been taught on myth and legend.
phil
Guest
Posts: n/a
@ John Tullamarine
Strangely you are one of the very few here who understood the reasons for my postings. Probably some of my posts were too provoking (my fault) for many pilots here, so most people did not concentrate on rational arguments when replying but instead felt personally attacked and reacted in an irrational way (I hope their employers will never appoint them to participate in a TV-discussion dealing with aviation safety - strangling their discussion participants will not make a very good impression
).
@Tigs2
I would not say that I have no knowledge of aviation accidents or CRM/Human Factors. I may have exaggerated my ignorance just a little bit. I guess, I have also exaggerated my fears a little bit...probably I have exaggerated EVERYTHING a little bit to provoke discussion. Unfortunately the result was not "discussion" (as I had intended) but calling names, losing one´s cool head etc
@many here:
I repeatedly asked pilots here to prove that I was wrong. Nobody cared to answer those questions in a rational way or nobody could prove that I was wrong. Regarding the 3-engines-747, which started this whole topic there have been at least some (rational) attempts to prove that this flight was O.K. (though one still can have a different opinion, which I have: as a passenger I definitely would have preferred to land in "New York" instead of having to risk a landing in "New Gimli"...). Of course in all the accidents, I cited, their have been contributing factors and it was never "pilot error" alone. But as in this example from the Kegworth-report:
(http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resou...pdf_502831.pdf)
...pilot error was the primary cause of all those accidents (and many others, like the Cali-accident: http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/calirep.html)
I don´t say this to "bash the pilots" but because it is so easy to become a victim of "contributing factors" (like being "low on fuel", maybe?):
There would still be interesting things to discuss concerning safety but I know this will not happen here (at least not as long as my name shows up here).
Therefore, please feel free to bash me now, this time I PROMISE, I will not return and I will not read this thread any longer! Good times are coming!
thePassenger (a.k.a. "idiot")
Strangely you are one of the very few here who understood the reasons for my postings. Probably some of my posts were too provoking (my fault) for many pilots here, so most people did not concentrate on rational arguments when replying but instead felt personally attacked and reacted in an irrational way (I hope their employers will never appoint them to participate in a TV-discussion dealing with aviation safety - strangling their discussion participants will not make a very good impression
).@Tigs2
I would not say that I have no knowledge of aviation accidents or CRM/Human Factors. I may have exaggerated my ignorance just a little bit. I guess, I have also exaggerated my fears a little bit...probably I have exaggerated EVERYTHING a little bit to provoke discussion. Unfortunately the result was not "discussion" (as I had intended) but calling names, losing one´s cool head etc
@many here:
I repeatedly asked pilots here to prove that I was wrong. Nobody cared to answer those questions in a rational way or nobody could prove that I was wrong. Regarding the 3-engines-747, which started this whole topic there have been at least some (rational) attempts to prove that this flight was O.K. (though one still can have a different opinion, which I have: as a passenger I definitely would have preferred to land in "New York" instead of having to risk a landing in "New Gimli"...). Of course in all the accidents, I cited, their have been contributing factors and it was never "pilot error" alone. But as in this example from the Kegworth-report:
The cause of the accident was that the operating crew shut down the No.2 engine after a fan blade had fractured in the No.1 engine. This engine subsequently suffered major thrust loss due to secondary fan damage as power was increased during the final approach to land.
The following factors contributed to the incorrect response of the flight crew:
(http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resou...pdf_502831.pdf)
...pilot error was the primary cause of all those accidents (and many others, like the Cali-accident: http://sunnyday.mit.edu/accidents/calirep.html)
I don´t say this to "bash the pilots" but because it is so easy to become a victim of "contributing factors" (like being "low on fuel", maybe?):
Contributing to the cause of the accident were: 1. The flightcrew's ongoing efforts to expedite their approach and landing in order to avoid potential delays.
Therefore, please feel free to bash me now, this time I PROMISE, I will not return and I will not read this thread any longer! Good times are coming!
thePassenger (a.k.a. "idiot")
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Europe
Posts: 214
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My problem with thePassenger was not that he may have an interest in Air Safety, but that his arguments, statements and responses had a certain irresolvable and circular quality to them. This looked, to me at least, like he had not chosen to do much learning, and was obscuring the fact that he actually has a number of well-formed opinions which he wished to exercise here (for whatever reason). In other words, in addition to his undoubted air safety interest he may have had an additional interest. Whether or not I am right is irrelevant – but I thought it best to start by being honest about my approach to somebody who simply did not seem to learn and who adopted a particular tone here on pprune. I think, in fact, that this has really been a bit of a time-wasting exercise.
However, it is only reasonable to at least try to justify what I have said. Clearly the main clue to how badly “calibrated” his judgments are can be seen from the pejorative characterisation of a number of accidents which he offers, the language he uses and the judgments he expresses. There are several authoritative sources he could use to inform himself about these events, if he wished. In this regard his opinions were of no substance and that seems to have been forgotten by some who wished to engage with him. The fact that he could dip into an accident report and quote bits does not necessarily make for a persuasive argument. He was fearless in deriding the opinion of experienced B744 pilots, which was at least courageous.
When I asked him about his apparent willingness – even compulsion – to return to this thread, he either misunderstood or dodged my query. He talked in generalities and his arguments were thus difficult to assess. When I tried to tackle him about his generalised arguments, I said:
When I pointed out that safety is quantifiable, so as to ensure that you are at least trying to measure or compare like with like, he replied:
Then I pointed out that this – “a LITTLE BIT” – needs some measurable dimension by which one could assess the need for movement and asked how much would be required; I said “On what criterion? Why just a little bit? Why not a lot?”
He replied:
He then provided an ostensible answer to why movement does not occur:
To my mind this exchange is a demonstration of why thePassenger did not merit any more attention. He was simply throwing out generalities (and some unjustified attacks on pilots), but these were presented in such a way that there could never be an end or resolution to any “discussion” with him. He claimed he wanted proof that he was wrong, but never seemed to see or hear the argument.
He is right about the fact that a loss of cool on the part of some here (and personal attacks) are not of much use to anybody, but seems oblivious of his role in creating “contributing factors” to such attacks. It was all too easy, in my opinion, to share the frustration of the poster who invited him “to change your soubriquet … and shut up”.
An excellent example of how to create such frustration is the claim in his final post above:
(Errr… “nobody” ... not a single contributor?). I think all parties will now be happy. He is happy that we failed to “prove” him wrong in a “rational” way. Some of us might just be happy because he is gone.
However, it is only reasonable to at least try to justify what I have said. Clearly the main clue to how badly “calibrated” his judgments are can be seen from the pejorative characterisation of a number of accidents which he offers, the language he uses and the judgments he expresses. There are several authoritative sources he could use to inform himself about these events, if he wished. In this regard his opinions were of no substance and that seems to have been forgotten by some who wished to engage with him. The fact that he could dip into an accident report and quote bits does not necessarily make for a persuasive argument. He was fearless in deriding the opinion of experienced B744 pilots, which was at least courageous.
When I asked him about his apparent willingness – even compulsion – to return to this thread, he either misunderstood or dodged my query. He talked in generalities and his arguments were thus difficult to assess. When I tried to tackle him about his generalised arguments, I said:
It [a particular post] might help you understand the difference between unsupported generalised opinion and the significance [of arguments/opinions rooted in an operational context].
When you speak of "quantifiable in terms of risk, redundancy" you must draw a line somewhere - what is acceptable (safe) and what is not. I just think that you should move that line a LITTLE BIT more towards the "safe" - side.
He replied:
"A lot" would be even better, of course.”
“But the answer to your question is: economical reasons.”
He is right about the fact that a loss of cool on the part of some here (and personal attacks) are not of much use to anybody, but seems oblivious of his role in creating “contributing factors” to such attacks. It was all too easy, in my opinion, to share the frustration of the poster who invited him “to change your soubriquet … and shut up”.
An excellent example of how to create such frustration is the claim in his final post above:
I repeatedly asked pilots here to prove that I was wrong. Nobody cared to answer those questions in a rational way or nobody could prove that I was wrong.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Milano
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by thePassenger
Certainly passengers SHOULD have a say in such a matter
There is nothing we could reasonably tell you to ease this on this pages, except "OK, You are right, BA is a branch of b****hit", which we could easily do all together, but would have very little resonance with reality.
Now, my humble advice is, let alone this BA issue, it's only an apparent problem for you; your Lee Harvey Oswald.
If you really want to face your flight phobias, face them directly. SPEAK to the pilots, face to face, don't just poison your brain with the press (no pun intended, oh well..). Visit a flight school, maybe start training for a PPL. I can tell you, flying an aircraft (whatever) isn't tough, it's just COMPLICATED. Lots of things, from different fields, gathering together. There is little you could understand objectively, if you had no chance to "smell the flavour". And no way if you're heavily disturbed by your irrationality (great thing, I love mine, but it's an obstacle, here).
I'll be pleased to discuss these issues with you again. I would be one of those who would sign up to talk to you, if this could help. And it would, trust me.
Take care
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pasenger
What is your experience in Human Factors?? You once again quote Kegworth, you prove that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Passenger, do you know why the fan blade cracked??
Do you know why the pilots shut down the wrong engine??
Do you know why the pilots were staisfied they had shut down in their minds the correct engine??
Are you aware of the lack of training on type the pilots had recieved??
Are you aware of the unreliability of instrumentation (vibration gauges) on the previous model of aircraft??
Are you aware of the distractions from ATC that contributed to the pilots not completeing a full review of the situation??
I think the answer is NO! Therefore as i said in my original post which the MOD seemed not to like, You profess to know much, but you know nothing, and even when faced with advice and information from professionals, you refuse to accept it.
The cause of any crash can always be put down to the pilots as they are the last ones with their hands on the controls, however, if you read reports which were later discredited, and then do no further research their is not much i can do. I do not think you exaggerated your ignorance of Human Error, i really believe you know nothing of the subject.
What is your experience in Human Factors?? You once again quote Kegworth, you prove that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Passenger, do you know why the fan blade cracked??
Do you know why the pilots shut down the wrong engine??
Do you know why the pilots were staisfied they had shut down in their minds the correct engine??
Are you aware of the lack of training on type the pilots had recieved??
Are you aware of the unreliability of instrumentation (vibration gauges) on the previous model of aircraft??
Are you aware of the distractions from ATC that contributed to the pilots not completeing a full review of the situation??
I think the answer is NO! Therefore as i said in my original post which the MOD seemed not to like, You profess to know much, but you know nothing, and even when faced with advice and information from professionals, you refuse to accept it.
The cause of any crash can always be put down to the pilots as they are the last ones with their hands on the controls, however, if you read reports which were later discredited, and then do no further research their is not much i can do. I do not think you exaggerated your ignorance of Human Error, i really believe you know nothing of the subject.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
God, I must be sad.
I've just had the misfortune to read this thread almost in its entirety. Boring, psuedo-intelectual posts by "the passenger", with no listed credentials to back up pseudo-theories.
In the interests of good manners, may I say thank you to "the passenger" for taking the time to enlighten me so eliquently.
FB
I've just had the misfortune to read this thread almost in its entirety. Boring, psuedo-intelectual posts by "the passenger", with no listed credentials to back up pseudo-theories.
In the interests of good manners, may I say thank you to "the passenger" for taking the time to enlighten me so eliquently.
FB
Rotate on this!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Aberdeen
Age: 64
Posts: 403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by flyingbug
God, I must be sad. FB
Actually I think that it has been a well conducted argument/debate, call it what you will, on the side of 'thepassenger' - no vitriol - no tantrums.
Some other posts have been informative and have addressed points he has raised - which I guess it what these fora are all about.
Your post however, served no purpose at all.
It would a shame if this thread died because 'thepassenger' got fed up to the back teeth with some of the 'toys out of the pram' mentality that has been manifest on these pages.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: England
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually, the toys aren't out of the pram, however, as the passenger stated himself, some of his threads/arguments were intentionally provocative. As that was his intention, there can be no surprises that many people felt upset.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flyingbug
you are absolutely correct.
SLFguy, i disagree with you completely. As your profile states you are a beancounter, if that is the case and your handle SLF is Self Loading Freight then there is a forum where you and the Passenger can pontificate on our professionalism as much as you like, please go there.
Flyingbug
my theory is that the passenger must be a psychiatrist. His purpose is to drive us insane with his pseudo-theories. His next post will be to advertise counselling services to pilots who are feeling anger towards unqualified passengers who make unqualified posts.
you are absolutely correct.
SLFguy, i disagree with you completely. As your profile states you are a beancounter, if that is the case and your handle SLF is Self Loading Freight then there is a forum where you and the Passenger can pontificate on our professionalism as much as you like, please go there.
Flyingbug
my theory is that the passenger must be a psychiatrist. His purpose is to drive us insane with his pseudo-theories. His next post will be to advertise counselling services to pilots who are feeling anger towards unqualified passengers who make unqualified posts.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nr Bristol
Age: 51
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Monkeys that includes me too
I have decided to register so I can voice my opinion on this thread.
To start with a have to mention that I’m not a pilot, however I have an interest in Aviation…
The Passenger started off on a particular bad footing with you ‘pilots’ here which I think is particularly not such a wise idea considering the fact that it’s a pilots forum.
However,
Just because someone happens to drive a plane, or has technical skills in this area it doesn’t give them the right to be aloof and up his/her butt when in discussion in an open forum, especially in regard of safety unless you happen to be talking about the technical aspect of a plane, or piloting in general…
The same can be said about the other thread with the journo who wants to write something about a particular accident (Helios)…
It would seem that the condescending attitudes that some ‘pilots’ have towards other human beings lead me to believe that some are a just a bunch of gung-ho cowboys.
You see technical as some people tend to be, the only difference that separates us from the monkeys is the car keys, or in this case it’s maybe the pilots licence. Now I’m not saying this to all pilots here, but to some that need to know that every now and again they are just like the rest of us.
For starters a pilot although skilful in the art of flying a metal box around the sky, is not the most qualified person to speak about issues of safety. Yes he/she may be knowledgeable in a particular craft type he/she happens to be flying, and also about airfields and the like but it does not necessarily make him an expert as it does the PAX, or anyone else for that matter. For example an engineer might have more knowledge in this area as he/she works with materials.
Now then, we all know that statistically a plane is much safer than a ride in an automobile and that to a lot of people (pilots or non pilots) have no issue with flying. However to some people the fear of flying in very real. I myself have no fear about flying although I do have issues about dying. And no I don’t think this fear is irrational although some PAX behaviour might be considered so in this regard, especially when they worry the flight crew with their bizarre antics.
I think the real crux of the matter is not really about flying itself, but control.
In an automobile you generally get to see the person who is controlling it, if there is an accident and the driver dies, and the other people in the vehicle are safe it can be assumed (so long as they are not hurt) that they could walk away, or be rescued. In an airplane if the pilots and the crew are killed, the PAX have no chance at 35,000ft unless the plane is so god damn good it can land itself (Airbus anyone?) :P
In which case why use pilots in the first place, if not an issue with safety or the presumption that just because a person is up front that the computer is not as good as a human. Airbus pilots have mentioned not only on this forum but on countless others that the computer is quicker then they are. I myself would have no problem flying in a wire only system that was foolproof with no human pilots at all so long as statistically they were better than their human counterparts, which raises another question of mine. A hell of a lot of airplane incidents are caused by pilot error. So should airlines remove humans altogether from flying them.
Also flying isn’t as genetically ‘natural’ as ground based otherwise god or whoever would have given us wings…
The irrational fear of flying is a culmination of these various fear aspects combined. Some people has issues of depressurisation, or being sucked out of a plane, some have fears of landing in water, terrorists… the list is endless, however I really doubt that my car is going to be targeted on land by terrorists or hit a large body of water at speed…etc.
Statistics might say one thing, but gut feelings and common sense should also be a factor when considering just how ‘irrational’ the non pilot person is.
So my ten penny worth is aimed squarely at you pilots who now and again need to know how to treat others and stop being so aloof guys. Yes it’s amazing you can pilots those birds but you are monkeys like the rest of us..
Go eat Banana!
To start with a have to mention that I’m not a pilot, however I have an interest in Aviation…
The Passenger started off on a particular bad footing with you ‘pilots’ here which I think is particularly not such a wise idea considering the fact that it’s a pilots forum.
However,
Just because someone happens to drive a plane, or has technical skills in this area it doesn’t give them the right to be aloof and up his/her butt when in discussion in an open forum, especially in regard of safety unless you happen to be talking about the technical aspect of a plane, or piloting in general…
The same can be said about the other thread with the journo who wants to write something about a particular accident (Helios)…
It would seem that the condescending attitudes that some ‘pilots’ have towards other human beings lead me to believe that some are a just a bunch of gung-ho cowboys.
You see technical as some people tend to be, the only difference that separates us from the monkeys is the car keys, or in this case it’s maybe the pilots licence. Now I’m not saying this to all pilots here, but to some that need to know that every now and again they are just like the rest of us.
For starters a pilot although skilful in the art of flying a metal box around the sky, is not the most qualified person to speak about issues of safety. Yes he/she may be knowledgeable in a particular craft type he/she happens to be flying, and also about airfields and the like but it does not necessarily make him an expert as it does the PAX, or anyone else for that matter. For example an engineer might have more knowledge in this area as he/she works with materials.
Now then, we all know that statistically a plane is much safer than a ride in an automobile and that to a lot of people (pilots or non pilots) have no issue with flying. However to some people the fear of flying in very real. I myself have no fear about flying although I do have issues about dying. And no I don’t think this fear is irrational although some PAX behaviour might be considered so in this regard, especially when they worry the flight crew with their bizarre antics.
I think the real crux of the matter is not really about flying itself, but control.
In an automobile you generally get to see the person who is controlling it, if there is an accident and the driver dies, and the other people in the vehicle are safe it can be assumed (so long as they are not hurt) that they could walk away, or be rescued. In an airplane if the pilots and the crew are killed, the PAX have no chance at 35,000ft unless the plane is so god damn good it can land itself (Airbus anyone?) :P
In which case why use pilots in the first place, if not an issue with safety or the presumption that just because a person is up front that the computer is not as good as a human. Airbus pilots have mentioned not only on this forum but on countless others that the computer is quicker then they are. I myself would have no problem flying in a wire only system that was foolproof with no human pilots at all so long as statistically they were better than their human counterparts, which raises another question of mine. A hell of a lot of airplane incidents are caused by pilot error. So should airlines remove humans altogether from flying them.
Also flying isn’t as genetically ‘natural’ as ground based otherwise god or whoever would have given us wings…
The irrational fear of flying is a culmination of these various fear aspects combined. Some people has issues of depressurisation, or being sucked out of a plane, some have fears of landing in water, terrorists… the list is endless, however I really doubt that my car is going to be targeted on land by terrorists or hit a large body of water at speed…etc.
Statistics might say one thing, but gut feelings and common sense should also be a factor when considering just how ‘irrational’ the non pilot person is.
So my ten penny worth is aimed squarely at you pilots who now and again need to know how to treat others and stop being so aloof guys. Yes it’s amazing you can pilots those birds but you are monkeys like the rest of us..
Go eat Banana!
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 2,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redgoblin,
In replying to your question I think it is taking this thread a little off base, however after 200 plus posts there is a certain inevitability in that I suppose.
However to try and address your points :
This is the nature of the beast I am afraid. As you say this is primarily a pilots forum but it is open to other groups. In fact be it a pilot a passenger or anyone else they can be as aloof as they like. In fact as long as the forum rules are generally complied with, they can adopt any stance they want. Being a non visual medium in the face to face sense, forums such as these are frequently open to misinterpretation and are very often misused by design or accident. Sometimes people are not what they claim to be in either corner, and those that are, are often loathe to waste too much time constructing a reasoned arguement that is in competition with the nonsense merchants.
Not only pilots but most of those other human beings as well. Outsiders wandering into a tribe, be it a pilots forum, your local pub, an office or a group of mountain gorillas are frequently treated with suspicion, mistrust and inate hostility until a credential has been established. Again the nature of the internet and forums such as these is that there is little need to apply all the protocols that an invividual would normally do in a real life discusion or meeting. A normally meek and mild individual can come on here and be a complete extrovert, just as anybody else can adopt a posture that may be far removed from their true character.
Most pilots are definetaly not "gung ho cowboys" in their daily jobs they wouldn't last long if they were. your perception is erroneous because you are making the assumption that usernames on a open forum are indicitive of the true persona of the person behind them and that is not always the case.
A bad anology in my opinion. I think putting the keys in the ignition often brings us much closer to our simian cousins than we would like to admit. A lot of ordinarily sensible individuals turn into rage fuelled overcompetitive survivalists once they get behind the wheel. Probably to some extent most of us do because we are locked in our own private environment and feel enhanced in our performance and protected from reprisal. In fact much like participating on the forums.
Well I am afraid often it does. Particularly in matters of flying that metal box around the sky. whether it makes him an "expert" or not, it is likely the individual has a very high concern for such matters and with experience a likely wealth of knowledge, opinion and comment on safety related issues in this regard. An engineer would very likely have a better knowledge of specialist related issues and this is undisputed, however the operation of those systems is the day to day raison d'etre for the pilot.
Fear is often born out of a lack of understanding and inability to contol. Hopefully understanding can be sought out to alleviate the former aspect which should help mitigate the perception or reality of lack of control.
Computers are quicker than humans that is why we use them in aircraft, cars, offices and nuclear power stations etc. However just like the humans who design them they are prone to failure. Unlike humans who can adapt to failure, computers and their programes are often very poor at adapting to any sort of complex failure. To revert back to the last paragraph that emotion of "fear" is not something a computer has, and it is a great motivator for the human being as it is one of the survival basics.
Maybe one day in the future computers will be so reliable that they can perform these functions without pilots, but in public transport that day is unlikely to be anytime soon and unlikely to affect me or you. when you talk of wire systems, you are in fact referring to a flying control toolbox that doesnt substitute for the pilot, it substitutes for hydraulic pipes and metal cables and uses a few computer enhancements to provide some other stability functions. Again a case of better understanding.
Ok but my reply is aimed squarely at you, who as you have admitted are wandering into an arena populated by professional pilots and others to proffer opinion and comment. You are entitled to do this and I hope you are treated with respect for the most part. However the pilots in these forums can likewise be "aloof" if they wish or seem to be, you are a visitor in their playground. "Piloting these birds" ( first time I have ever said that !) is what brings our egos, alter egos,and personas to these forums. The fascination of the subject matter is presumably what brings you. In reality we know what what we are, and our strengths and shortcomings are as individual to us within a professional collective as they are to any other section of the community. We do receive a lot of formal training in interpersonal and safety issues, these we often speak of as CRM but it is a very wide subject with a common goal.
If you want to join us go ahead. If you want to criticize go ahead. But while you are enjoying that banana remember not to confuse everything you read on these forums with either real life or real personas. People are becoming frightened of the word "discrimination" these days because of the negative associations. In fact it is the basis of common sense and judgement. If you use it well in the real world then use it here to sift the fact from the fiction and the diamonds from the spoil.
Yours aloofly.
In replying to your question I think it is taking this thread a little off base, however after 200 plus posts there is a certain inevitability in that I suppose.
However to try and address your points :
The Passenger started off on a particular bad footing with you ‘pilots’ here which I think is particularly not such a wise idea considering the fact that it’s a pilots forum.
However,
Just because someone happens to drive a plane, or has technical skills in this area it doesn’t give them the right to be aloof and up his/her butt when in discussion in an open forum, especially in regard of safety unless you happen to be talking about the technical aspect of a plane, or piloting in general…
However,
Just because someone happens to drive a plane, or has technical skills in this area it doesn’t give them the right to be aloof and up his/her butt when in discussion in an open forum, especially in regard of safety unless you happen to be talking about the technical aspect of a plane, or piloting in general…
It would seem that the condescending attitudes that some ‘pilots’ have towards other human beings lead me to believe that some are a just a bunch of gung-ho cowboys.
Most pilots are definetaly not "gung ho cowboys" in their daily jobs they wouldn't last long if they were. your perception is erroneous because you are making the assumption that usernames on a open forum are indicitive of the true persona of the person behind them and that is not always the case.
You see technical as some people tend to be, the only difference that separates us from the monkeys is the car keys, or in this case it’s maybe the pilots licence. Now I’m not saying this to all pilots here, but to some that need to know that every now and again they are just like the rest of us
For starters a pilot although skilful in the art of flying a metal box around the sky, is not the most qualified person to speak about issues of safety. Yes he/she may be knowledgeable in a particular craft type he/she happens to be flying, and also about airfields and the like but it does not necessarily make him an expert as it does the PAX, or anyone else for that matter. For example an engineer might have more knowledge in this area as he/she works with materials.
I think the real crux of the matter is not really about flying itself, but control.
In an automobile you generally get to see the person who is controlling it, if there is an accident and the driver dies, and the other people in the vehicle are safe it can be assumed (so long as they are not hurt) that they could walk away, or be rescued. In an airplane if the pilots and the crew are killed, the PAX have no chance at 35,000ft unless the plane is so god damn good it can land itself (Airbus anyone?) :P
In which case why use pilots in the first place, if not an issue with safety or the presumption that just because a person is up front that the computer is not as good as a human. Airbus pilots have mentioned not only on this forum but on countless others that the computer is quicker then they are. I myself would have no problem flying in a wire only system that was foolproof with no human pilots at all so long as statistically they were better than their human counterparts, which raises another question of mine. A hell of a lot of airplane incidents are caused by pilot error. So should airlines remove humans altogether from flying them.
In an automobile you generally get to see the person who is controlling it, if there is an accident and the driver dies, and the other people in the vehicle are safe it can be assumed (so long as they are not hurt) that they could walk away, or be rescued. In an airplane if the pilots and the crew are killed, the PAX have no chance at 35,000ft unless the plane is so god damn good it can land itself (Airbus anyone?) :P
In which case why use pilots in the first place, if not an issue with safety or the presumption that just because a person is up front that the computer is not as good as a human. Airbus pilots have mentioned not only on this forum but on countless others that the computer is quicker then they are. I myself would have no problem flying in a wire only system that was foolproof with no human pilots at all so long as statistically they were better than their human counterparts, which raises another question of mine. A hell of a lot of airplane incidents are caused by pilot error. So should airlines remove humans altogether from flying them.
Computers are quicker than humans that is why we use them in aircraft, cars, offices and nuclear power stations etc. However just like the humans who design them they are prone to failure. Unlike humans who can adapt to failure, computers and their programes are often very poor at adapting to any sort of complex failure. To revert back to the last paragraph that emotion of "fear" is not something a computer has, and it is a great motivator for the human being as it is one of the survival basics.
Maybe one day in the future computers will be so reliable that they can perform these functions without pilots, but in public transport that day is unlikely to be anytime soon and unlikely to affect me or you. when you talk of wire systems, you are in fact referring to a flying control toolbox that doesnt substitute for the pilot, it substitutes for hydraulic pipes and metal cables and uses a few computer enhancements to provide some other stability functions. Again a case of better understanding.
So my ten penny worth is aimed squarely at you pilots who now and again need to know how to treat others and stop being so aloof guys. Yes it’s amazing you can pilots those birds but you are monkeys like the rest of us..
Go eat Banana!
Go eat Banana!
If you want to join us go ahead. If you want to criticize go ahead. But while you are enjoying that banana remember not to confuse everything you read on these forums with either real life or real personas. People are becoming frightened of the word "discrimination" these days because of the negative associations. In fact it is the basis of common sense and judgement. If you use it well in the real world then use it here to sift the fact from the fiction and the diamonds from the spoil.
Yours aloofly.
-AL@FT-
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: VA, USA
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading much of what is written here, I see communication as the only problem. The professional side did their best to explain too technical things to the not-so-professionals. They could have just shrugged and walked away or say it is total rubbish but they didn't, so at the least this shows their professionalism and their good intentions.
Now, what people fear is mostly the things they do not know basically. That fear still stays with you though, even you know what's going on and you have gone over it lots of times. It should be there to make you cautious; maybe a pilot's fears are different than a passanger's but all in the end it comes down to a safe operation anyway. So I wouldn't agree with the term that has been used for pilots here, no I don't think they are gung-ho cowboys...
Thinking about driving a car and flying a plane, I don't see much difference at all; you should always practice extreme caution and the slightest mistake can cost lives. However aircrafts are much more complicated pieces of machinery and one expects this as they use 3 dimensions in space rather than 2 dimensions in the case of ground vehicles.
I will try to simplify the case by giving this example (let me know if I get anything wrong please):
Say you have a car (for the sake of discussion and comparison to a 4-engine aircraft) with an engine that has 4 cylinders. Now you will have 4 spark plugs. Let's say one developed a problem and won't fire, meaning now you have only 3 cylinders out of 4, working OK. Does that mean that the car won't go or climb any hills? Of course not, it just means you have up to 25% less power, more fuel consumption... Will you be able to pin-point the problem right away? Most probably not so you will take it to a mechanic.
Now consider a 4 engine aircraft which losses one of the engines. Will the plane drop out of the sky? If there are no other problems that is simply not possible. Will you know the problem right away? Yes because you have an access to monitoring every essential part of an airplane. Do you have the luxury to talk to maintenance right away? Oh yes and it is such a nice thing (wish we had the same things for cars too)...
The obvious part, to me, is how good can you monitor a thing let it be any piece of machinery. If you have a good monitoring of what's going on most probably you will be able to take the necessary steps to prevent an unfortunate event.
Lastly I would like to say the safe flight of an aircraft is accomplished by a team of people. If there is something wrong at any place the whole thing can go down; so it is not always who is behind the "wheel".
Now, what people fear is mostly the things they do not know basically. That fear still stays with you though, even you know what's going on and you have gone over it lots of times. It should be there to make you cautious; maybe a pilot's fears are different than a passanger's but all in the end it comes down to a safe operation anyway. So I wouldn't agree with the term that has been used for pilots here, no I don't think they are gung-ho cowboys...
Thinking about driving a car and flying a plane, I don't see much difference at all; you should always practice extreme caution and the slightest mistake can cost lives. However aircrafts are much more complicated pieces of machinery and one expects this as they use 3 dimensions in space rather than 2 dimensions in the case of ground vehicles.
I will try to simplify the case by giving this example (let me know if I get anything wrong please):
Say you have a car (for the sake of discussion and comparison to a 4-engine aircraft) with an engine that has 4 cylinders. Now you will have 4 spark plugs. Let's say one developed a problem and won't fire, meaning now you have only 3 cylinders out of 4, working OK. Does that mean that the car won't go or climb any hills? Of course not, it just means you have up to 25% less power, more fuel consumption... Will you be able to pin-point the problem right away? Most probably not so you will take it to a mechanic.
Now consider a 4 engine aircraft which losses one of the engines. Will the plane drop out of the sky? If there are no other problems that is simply not possible. Will you know the problem right away? Yes because you have an access to monitoring every essential part of an airplane. Do you have the luxury to talk to maintenance right away? Oh yes and it is such a nice thing (wish we had the same things for cars too)...
The obvious part, to me, is how good can you monitor a thing let it be any piece of machinery. If you have a good monitoring of what's going on most probably you will be able to take the necessary steps to prevent an unfortunate event.
Lastly I would like to say the safe flight of an aircraft is accomplished by a team of people. If there is something wrong at any place the whole thing can go down; so it is not always who is behind the "wheel".
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Here and There
Posts: 167
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bealzebub:
nice post and very accurate as well. Nice to see someone with such a patience after some 200 posts. I must admit, that I gave up writing extensive explanations, but I would surely endorse what you said (I certainly couldn't do it as well as you did).
Redgoblin:
As Bealzebub correctly described, it is bad analogy to compare driving a car and flying an aiplane.
Not surprisingly, that mistake is exclusively made by non-pilots.
I guess it would be as similar to riding a bike with training wheels (which my 2 year old can do) and driving a heavy loaded multi axle truck. Both are a means of transportation from A to B, but that's where the similarities end.
Moving heavy equipment with large payload (i.e. Freight, Passengers) in a 3 dimensional environment at high speeds through all sorts of weather and across multiple cultural/lingual areas while relying in part on verbal communication (Air Traffic Control) to build situational awareness has an entirely different flavor than driving a car around town.
Anyone who disagrees with that has either never flown an airplane or has tried to fly one and failed miserably in his/her first flying lessons.
The latter breed tends to be very noisy about how simple the whole flying thing is and while they never lose interest in aviation itself, they just might use any aviation related discussion to restore their dented egos. (Now that's a little of topic, but some of the posts on this thread just remind me again and again)
Luckystrike:
Luckily, in most modern airplanes we have quite advanced warning systems which will inform us quite accurately what went wrong. However, we still go through a protocol of diagnostics to double check. If time is no factor, we might consult with engineering via satelite phone for any suggestions they might have. They have the ability to look into the aircraft systems from the ground while the aircraft is in flight.
Then we review what Options we have under the given circumstances. Then we decide what option we feel is the best and assign tasks to the people involved.
Before we take any action at all we review the diagnosis again to reassure that the actions we are about to take are the ones which will solve the problem as we intended. For the rest of the flight we keep monitoring the situation and if necessary, take corrective action according to the same process as described above.
Now this might sound like a long process but in reality, it could be minutes or sometimes even seconds. The reason it can be that fast is, that we already decided before the flight as to who will fly and navigate and who will work on the problem while keeping the rest of the crew in the loop.
And you are absolutely right. It is a team effort to make flying as safe as it is today. I mean...putting 500 people in a narrow body of aluminium on the ground is reason enough to be concerned for safety.. now surround that body with 120tons of fuel, put 4 igniters (=engines) on it and send it with 600miles/hour through the air....
Safety is a big task and needs a lot of good people.
nice post and very accurate as well. Nice to see someone with such a patience after some 200 posts. I must admit, that I gave up writing extensive explanations, but I would surely endorse what you said (I certainly couldn't do it as well as you did).
Redgoblin:
As Bealzebub correctly described, it is bad analogy to compare driving a car and flying an aiplane.
Not surprisingly, that mistake is exclusively made by non-pilots. I guess it would be as similar to riding a bike with training wheels (which my 2 year old can do) and driving a heavy loaded multi axle truck. Both are a means of transportation from A to B, but that's where the similarities end.
Moving heavy equipment with large payload (i.e. Freight, Passengers) in a 3 dimensional environment at high speeds through all sorts of weather and across multiple cultural/lingual areas while relying in part on verbal communication (Air Traffic Control) to build situational awareness has an entirely different flavor than driving a car around town.
Anyone who disagrees with that has either never flown an airplane or has tried to fly one and failed miserably in his/her first flying lessons.
The latter breed tends to be very noisy about how simple the whole flying thing is and while they never lose interest in aviation itself, they just might use any aviation related discussion to restore their dented egos. (Now that's a little of topic, but some of the posts on this thread just remind me again and again)
Luckystrike:
Luckily, in most modern airplanes we have quite advanced warning systems which will inform us quite accurately what went wrong. However, we still go through a protocol of diagnostics to double check. If time is no factor, we might consult with engineering via satelite phone for any suggestions they might have. They have the ability to look into the aircraft systems from the ground while the aircraft is in flight.
Then we review what Options we have under the given circumstances. Then we decide what option we feel is the best and assign tasks to the people involved.
Before we take any action at all we review the diagnosis again to reassure that the actions we are about to take are the ones which will solve the problem as we intended. For the rest of the flight we keep monitoring the situation and if necessary, take corrective action according to the same process as described above.
Now this might sound like a long process but in reality, it could be minutes or sometimes even seconds. The reason it can be that fast is, that we already decided before the flight as to who will fly and navigate and who will work on the problem while keeping the rest of the crew in the loop.
And you are absolutely right. It is a team effort to make flying as safe as it is today. I mean...putting 500 people in a narrow body of aluminium on the ground is reason enough to be concerned for safety.. now surround that body with 120tons of fuel, put 4 igniters (=engines) on it and send it with 600miles/hour through the air....
Safety is a big task and needs a lot of good people.
Last edited by Avius; 13th May 2006 at 05:48.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Nr Bristol
Age: 51
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That’s for the response:
First of all let me say thanks to all that have responded so far, I seriously thought that I would get some nasty responses, especially from the Banana comments that I made.
However, I got to respect Beelzebub for his well thought out reply. Seriously
Getting back to the topic of computers or diagnostics in aircraft does having a computer on board overcomplicate things when flying especially in aspect to safety or emergency situations and do you pilots think sometimes you could do with out them, or do they help. Are they a blessing?
This must take time, during which the aircraft could be plummeting out of the sky. I’ve seen a documentary on a Canadian airline which dropped out of the sky (Fire on the Netherrealm) and the captain did everything by the book, so much so that he might have prevented disaster if he didn’t go by the book.
I understand that the accident was due to the wiring in the entertainment computer/ and the use of the foil in the wiring ducts, and also they never shut the server off, but even so was the pilot to blame… I would say no quite frankly he followed protocol.
However…
As commercial airline pilots how much say do you get over protocol, and what should and shouldn’t be done by the book? –
I know it’s a difficult question to ask because some emergency situations must be very different. Do you have hypothetical situation training and if so how often is it enforced, and what do you do, have meetings or is it all Sim based. I know some airlines must have different procedures. Do they expect you to train so many Sim hours, or is it just left up to you as a pilot to be ‘aware’.
Thanks
First of all let me say thanks to all that have responded so far, I seriously thought that I would get some nasty responses, especially from the Banana comments that I made.
However, I got to respect Beelzebub for his well thought out reply. Seriously
Getting back to the topic of computers or diagnostics in aircraft does having a computer on board overcomplicate things when flying especially in aspect to safety or emergency situations and do you pilots think sometimes you could do with out them, or do they help. Are they a blessing?
Luckily, in most modern airplanes we have quite advanced warning systems which will inform us quite accurately what went wrong. However, we still go through a protocol of diagnostics to double check. If time is no factor, we might consult with engineering via satelite phone for any suggestions they might have. They have the ability to look into the aircraft systems from the ground while the aircraft is in flight
I understand that the accident was due to the wiring in the entertainment computer/ and the use of the foil in the wiring ducts, and also they never shut the server off, but even so was the pilot to blame… I would say no quite frankly he followed protocol.
However…
As commercial airline pilots how much say do you get over protocol, and what should and shouldn’t be done by the book? –
I know it’s a difficult question to ask because some emergency situations must be very different. Do you have hypothetical situation training and if so how often is it enforced, and what do you do, have meetings or is it all Sim based. I know some airlines must have different procedures. Do they expect you to train so many Sim hours, or is it just left up to you as a pilot to be ‘aware’.
Thanks
Computers and other sorts of automation make life in cockpit easier but they can and they do fail. So do we think that we can do without them? It's not enough to merely think so - ability to safely fly airplane with automatics disabled must be demonstrated to apropriate aviation authority to get type rated. In layspeak: if you can't fly it without computer, you will not be allowed to fly it at all. And you won't get TR if you don't know how to work your airplane's computers either.
Well if there's threat of "plummeting out of the sky" one deals with it immediately but guess what - 99.99% of unusal occurences during flight do not include even remote threat of "plummeting". I just had a complete autopilot failure the other day and as you haven't heard of me on CNN you can guess the outcome. But to spoil the guessing game for you - neither cabincrew nor passengers noticed anything unusual despite the airplane being (gosh ) handflown for almost half an hour. And I'm just your average first-officer, not some highly skilled clone of Chuck Yeager.
Regarding your "Canadian aircraft that dropped of the sky" - that tells everything one needs to know about the credibility of the movie you're refering to. It was certainly not Canadian, it was Swissair flight 111 in 1998. And either you or moviemakers got it wrong; even if the crew turned towards the nearest airport at the first trace of smoke it would be too late. Also there was no way of identifying source of fire and no way to switch off the server from the cockpit even if the crew knew it was the culprit. The cockpit burnt out even before plane hit the water. To say that this made following "protocols" difficult would be severe understatement.
Everything in commercial air transport should be done by the book but then every book has a caveat that says something like: "Nothing presented in this manual should prevent pilot in comand from exercising his/her best judgment and authority in assuring the safe conduct of flight". I'm thankful that situations requiring deviating from the checklist are so rare that I have never met in person any pilot who had to deviate from laid procedures to save the day. And we're not expected to "train so many sim hours", we're required by law to train for emergencies in sim at least twice a year.
Just my 1 fils (0.001 BHD) worth.
This must take time, during which the aircraft could be plummeting out of the sky.
) handflown for almost half an hour. And I'm just your average first-officer, not some highly skilled clone of Chuck Yeager.Regarding your "Canadian aircraft that dropped of the sky" - that tells everything one needs to know about the credibility of the movie you're refering to. It was certainly not Canadian, it was Swissair flight 111 in 1998. And either you or moviemakers got it wrong; even if the crew turned towards the nearest airport at the first trace of smoke it would be too late. Also there was no way of identifying source of fire and no way to switch off the server from the cockpit even if the crew knew it was the culprit. The cockpit burnt out even before plane hit the water. To say that this made following "protocols" difficult would be severe understatement.
Everything in commercial air transport should be done by the book but then every book has a caveat that says something like: "Nothing presented in this manual should prevent pilot in comand from exercising his/her best judgment and authority in assuring the safe conduct of flight". I'm thankful that situations requiring deviating from the checklist are so rare that I have never met in person any pilot who had to deviate from laid procedures to save the day. And we're not expected to "train so many sim hours", we're required by law to train for emergencies in sim at least twice a year.
Just my 1 fils (0.001 BHD) worth.