Automatics versus flying skills - Are some pilots scared to fly by hand?
PPRuNe supporter
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 1,677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of my flying is with Ab-Initio pilots and they have never had a problem with my hand flying, IMO if this stresses out a crewmember, he needs to find a new profession, if you don't use it, you lose it.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: pit
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some good posts. We should however not get stuck on the litteral "hand flying". There's more to it. Observation of the average new pilot today on the biggies shows the weak spots. Hand flying to me is also the part where the FMS/managed flight is left and the FCP sets in. It's mind boggling to see that one in two of todays jockeys are unable to extrapolate a decent flight path in the absence of the virtual GP. Some are completely lost when abeam at FL 100 and cleared for a visual. Not even talking about bad speed management when nothing is programmed. On a recent checkride we were instructed to hold over a NDB instead of the expected VOR, the NDB beeing 2nm ahead. I flew the good old tear-drop entry just to discover the FO and the instructor lost in space ... both desperately trying to set up the FMS with heads down on the right set to bring them into the loop again!
These skills are beeing lost just as much as the hands on stuff. Remembering the Lufthansa 320 in x-wind and many more lovely examples on Youtube show that these skills really need to be upheld. In some companies the amount of unstabilised approaches are quite frankly frightening. Lame excuses: Unexpected tight vectoring. No wonder the ATC controllers start doubting our skills and build in more separation and approaches with step-downs that make sure the jockeys get down, even if they burn a few hundred kilos more .
I just do not believe that these manual Cat1 flydowns in the Sim prove enough as training. The Sim is the Sim, not more. We need to train the guys to be on top of the situation at all times, irrespective of tight vectoring, FMS absence or funny reclearences. If so, they are much better suited to judge REALLY unstabilised or dangerous stuff. To force pilots to use almost only automatics, in the name of safety, is the wrong approach, i'd go so far and pretend it's counterproductive.
Best use of equippment should always INCLUDE the pilot.
These skills are beeing lost just as much as the hands on stuff. Remembering the Lufthansa 320 in x-wind and many more lovely examples on Youtube show that these skills really need to be upheld. In some companies the amount of unstabilised approaches are quite frankly frightening. Lame excuses: Unexpected tight vectoring. No wonder the ATC controllers start doubting our skills and build in more separation and approaches with step-downs that make sure the jockeys get down, even if they burn a few hundred kilos more .
I just do not believe that these manual Cat1 flydowns in the Sim prove enough as training. The Sim is the Sim, not more. We need to train the guys to be on top of the situation at all times, irrespective of tight vectoring, FMS absence or funny reclearences. If so, they are much better suited to judge REALLY unstabilised or dangerous stuff. To force pilots to use almost only automatics, in the name of safety, is the wrong approach, i'd go so far and pretend it's counterproductive.
Best use of equippment should always INCLUDE the pilot.
Last edited by pool; 21st Oct 2008 at 12:21.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Counterpoint
Many touching on the safety aspects of automation.
What about the commercial? If the MEL allows flight without parts of the automatics for days at a time how can you as an individual pro or as a cog in a company SMS justify an automatics and flight director only culture?
I particularly invite reactions and observations to loss of just autothrottle as a kick start to a trying day on the line.
Rob
What about the commercial? If the MEL allows flight without parts of the automatics for days at a time how can you as an individual pro or as a cog in a company SMS justify an automatics and flight director only culture?
I particularly invite reactions and observations to loss of just autothrottle as a kick start to a trying day on the line.
Rob
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scandiland
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's sad to hear that a few unlucky souls have managed to create an image of the new generation as having inadequate flying skills and being generally useless as pilots. It's very true that many of us have a lot to learn, but please don't generalise.
I reacted to SNS3's post indicating that you fly through the flight director?
I find this interesting, this is no critique, but it's interesting to hear different philosophies about this topic. In my outfit you either fly the flight director or you don't display it. Having the FD on the display indicates your intention to follow it's guidance and thus is a help for the non flying pilot to monitor the handling. Of course, it entails a lot of ordering to set headings, speeds, vertical speeds and etc. In short that type of flying requires a lot of communication. If one wants to fly rawdata, the FD is deselected and thereby one level of "help" is taken away and also a lot of the communication.
Flying manually following the FD is not about being behind the plane. In fact, I find it helpful in planning my next step since I have to come up with the correct order to set the new setting. It forces me to think ahead.
/LnS
I reacted to SNS3's post indicating that you fly through the flight director?
I find this interesting, this is no critique, but it's interesting to hear different philosophies about this topic. In my outfit you either fly the flight director or you don't display it. Having the FD on the display indicates your intention to follow it's guidance and thus is a help for the non flying pilot to monitor the handling. Of course, it entails a lot of ordering to set headings, speeds, vertical speeds and etc. In short that type of flying requires a lot of communication. If one wants to fly rawdata, the FD is deselected and thereby one level of "help" is taken away and also a lot of the communication.
Flying manually following the FD is not about being behind the plane. In fact, I find it helpful in planning my next step since I have to come up with the correct order to set the new setting. It forces me to think ahead.
/LnS
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I particularly invite reactions and observations to loss of just autothrottle as a kick start to a trying day on the line.
Now, I don't do five sectors a day, either.
Might be a tad different for the busy short haul guys.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having known a senior manager in a company WITHOUT such policies almost stall a manual throttle (sorry, 'thrust levverrrr') 737, I would suggest that any Captain in such a company as you cite has good grounds for refusing MEL dispatch for such a failure? That could focus the blind.
At least one would be 'up-to-speed'
by the 4th sector............
At least one would be 'up-to-speed'
by the 4th sector............
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see failure of an autothrottle as much of a hinderance at all. Then again, while we do have some airplanes with functional autothrottles, we have many that aren't, and don't get used. It's not uncommon to nurse the thrust levers all the way across the Atlantic, as a result. I don't see autothrottle deferral as something I'd think twice about. It's nice to have...but just not that big a deal.
The autopilot system, on the other hand, can mean changes to the ability to operate with RVSM, and consequently changes to where and how one operates, fuel, etc.
If one out of three autopilot channels is out, then again, not really something to lose sleep over. Two out of three, for that matter (we've usually only got two, so we start the day down one to begin with)...but it does signify additional planning is in order for the eventuality that the remaining one might be lost.
Flight director is out...in our system it's possible to have an inoperative FD with a functional autopilot (had that the other day). In that case, both vertical and horizontal FD guidance might be out, or just one or the other. A few days ago it was just my vertical, so I biased it up and out of the way and had the azimuth bar for guidance. Flight director out isn't the end of the world, either, and I would hope one wouldn't think it is. It's nice to have, but the full scan should always be going, flight director or not.
Someone above questioned my use of the phrase "to fly through the flight director." I mean just that. While they're called "command bars," they're really not. A better term might be advisory bars, and in my opinion one should always fly through them, rather than follow them blindly. If one is simply following the crosshairs, or putting the doghouse under the banana, without regard to altimetry, heading, course, airspeed, etc, then one has abdicated flying the airplane to the machine, and that's never a good thing. Particularly if one is handflying and using the FD.
If one is simply going to blindly follow the flight director, what if someone inadvertantly turns the heading bug too far, or turns it the wrong direction? Are we going to follow it the wrong direction, or simply turn in the right one, bank to what the FD would normally command (25 deg), and enter the turn while the PNF corrects his heading bug entry and the FD catches up? I'm going to fly through the flight director. I'm not going to ask someone to reach across the cockpit, turn it off, go back and correct the heading bug, then reach back and turn it on again. That would be more confusing and wasteful than simply flying the airplane around the turn.
A few months ago on arrival at JFK, we were given a hold, due to the airport closure. The PNF, a check airman, got busy with the FMS trying to put in a hold. The hold feature is great, but this was a direct entry and we were nearly on top of the fix. I crossed the fix and entered the hold maually, setting the VHF radios and inbound once I had made my intial turn. We were thorugh the second turn before the check airman managed to get into the box what he wanted in the box...making it far more complicated than it ever needed to be. While I appreciate the love of automation and the little magenta line, I submit we can fly just fine without it, be it the box itself, or the systems it commands.
Now a common practice which I see frequently, and of which I am equally guilty due to my ensconced laziness and general mindless malaise, is to fly an ILS off the victor radios, but go to the FMS for the missed approach procedure. This is easy, and simplifies a lot, but it can be too easy. Especially if the missed involves any complexity. What I usually do is ensure the procedure is loaded, check the hold on the missed and the procedure against what I have on the chart, and then fly the procedure off my VHF radios. If I have to go missed, I'll go back to the FMS...partially because it's got everything there in order with all the turns and the hold...but largely because I've become lazy. Lacking automation, that would my biggest (and really only) gripe should equipment fail or be deferred for maintenance...owing only to my own mental fatness and sluggishness and not to any compromise in safety it represents.
After all, that's what they pay us for (not the lazy and sluggish part...that comes free of charge
).
The autopilot system, on the other hand, can mean changes to the ability to operate with RVSM, and consequently changes to where and how one operates, fuel, etc.
If one out of three autopilot channels is out, then again, not really something to lose sleep over. Two out of three, for that matter (we've usually only got two, so we start the day down one to begin with)...but it does signify additional planning is in order for the eventuality that the remaining one might be lost.
Flight director is out...in our system it's possible to have an inoperative FD with a functional autopilot (had that the other day). In that case, both vertical and horizontal FD guidance might be out, or just one or the other. A few days ago it was just my vertical, so I biased it up and out of the way and had the azimuth bar for guidance. Flight director out isn't the end of the world, either, and I would hope one wouldn't think it is. It's nice to have, but the full scan should always be going, flight director or not.
Someone above questioned my use of the phrase "to fly through the flight director." I mean just that. While they're called "command bars," they're really not. A better term might be advisory bars, and in my opinion one should always fly through them, rather than follow them blindly. If one is simply following the crosshairs, or putting the doghouse under the banana, without regard to altimetry, heading, course, airspeed, etc, then one has abdicated flying the airplane to the machine, and that's never a good thing. Particularly if one is handflying and using the FD.
If one is simply going to blindly follow the flight director, what if someone inadvertantly turns the heading bug too far, or turns it the wrong direction? Are we going to follow it the wrong direction, or simply turn in the right one, bank to what the FD would normally command (25 deg), and enter the turn while the PNF corrects his heading bug entry and the FD catches up? I'm going to fly through the flight director. I'm not going to ask someone to reach across the cockpit, turn it off, go back and correct the heading bug, then reach back and turn it on again. That would be more confusing and wasteful than simply flying the airplane around the turn.
A few months ago on arrival at JFK, we were given a hold, due to the airport closure. The PNF, a check airman, got busy with the FMS trying to put in a hold. The hold feature is great, but this was a direct entry and we were nearly on top of the fix. I crossed the fix and entered the hold maually, setting the VHF radios and inbound once I had made my intial turn. We were thorugh the second turn before the check airman managed to get into the box what he wanted in the box...making it far more complicated than it ever needed to be. While I appreciate the love of automation and the little magenta line, I submit we can fly just fine without it, be it the box itself, or the systems it commands.
Now a common practice which I see frequently, and of which I am equally guilty due to my ensconced laziness and general mindless malaise, is to fly an ILS off the victor radios, but go to the FMS for the missed approach procedure. This is easy, and simplifies a lot, but it can be too easy. Especially if the missed involves any complexity. What I usually do is ensure the procedure is loaded, check the hold on the missed and the procedure against what I have on the chart, and then fly the procedure off my VHF radios. If I have to go missed, I'll go back to the FMS...partially because it's got everything there in order with all the turns and the hold...but largely because I've become lazy. Lacking automation, that would my biggest (and really only) gripe should equipment fail or be deferred for maintenance...owing only to my own mental fatness and sluggishness and not to any compromise in safety it represents.
After all, that's what they pay us for (not the lazy and sluggish part...that comes free of charge
).
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Seattle
Posts: 3,196
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find this interesting, this is no critique, but it's interesting to hear different philosophies about this topic. In my outfit you either fly the flight director or you don't display it. Having the FD on the display indicates your intention to follow it's guidance and thus is a help for the non flying pilot to monitor the handling.
FD is one of those things in my personal "nonstnadard" bucket... When on a visual, PAR, or VOR final, I will have the FD set via MCP to 800 fpm down. I use this as a reference point only (and I brief that to my FO), not clear direction. That gives me one more quick reference to a "nominal" rate of descent.
Every now & again you MUST resort to hand flying in order to land at all. Just yesterday going into CAtania Sigonella, Visual approach was the only option. ATC had us at 3000' until we got the runway visually. That was at about 5 miles. The autopilot is NOT going to get you down safely in a case like that! If you're not comfortable and proficient at hand-flying, you're no longer a good pilot.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent discussion. I recall cruising at 35,000 somewhere over Europe 20 years ago. Lovely day and I advised the newspaper reading No 2 that I would fly manually without even the aid of the FD including no autothrottle and tracking the various VOR's on the flight plan for the next five minutes or so. He sat up white with fright and said "If that is so I must put on my shoulder harness." He was genuinely frightened. A few minutes later I re-connected the automatics and he let out his pent up breath. "That was nice flying he said - I have never flown by hand above 5000 ft and never switched off the FD ...."
I am convinced that most pilots who protest that the automatics way is the only safe way, are deluding themselves. Either they are too damned lazy to keep their hand in despite numerous opportunities to do so - and I suspect the majority fit this bill; Or they are simply incompetent for the task - they know it but would never admit it.
I am convinced that most pilots who protest that the automatics way is the only safe way, are deluding themselves. Either they are too damned lazy to keep their hand in despite numerous opportunities to do so - and I suspect the majority fit this bill; Or they are simply incompetent for the task - they know it but would never admit it.
Per Ardua ad Astraeus
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 18,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Guppy
I can't see failure of an autothrottle as much of a hinderance at all.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Precisely BOAC,
For the last 8 or 9 years I've found myself sitting next to people who reflect the apparent 'fear' mentioned at points in this thread along with a genuine and significant downgrade in their normal performance. And this with just loss of autothrottle.
I also see the magic glass display flexibility not being used when someone does decide to fly non flight director. Flying an ILS with just a pair of dancing magenta diamonds to chase seems daft when a simple, but not regularly done, switch change gives a traditional and big picture display with all the trend information you could want in view.
..... and then let the fmc fly the missed approach
Rob
For the last 8 or 9 years I've found myself sitting next to people who reflect the apparent 'fear' mentioned at points in this thread along with a genuine and significant downgrade in their normal performance. And this with just loss of autothrottle.
I also see the magic glass display flexibility not being used when someone does decide to fly non flight director. Flying an ILS with just a pair of dancing magenta diamonds to chase seems daft when a simple, but not regularly done, switch change gives a traditional and big picture display with all the trend information you could want in view.
..... and then let the fmc fly the missed approach
Rob
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also see the magic glass display flexibility not be used when someone does decide decide to fly non flight director. Flying an ILS with just a pair of dancing magenta diamonds to chase seems daft when a simple, but not regularly done, switch change gives a traditional and big picture display with all th trend information you could want in view.
A separate EHSI, for us, can switch between a traditional HSI display or a map...but that's it. Perhaps that's why loss of any particular component (in our airplanes, at least) presents little concern...it doesn't really change anything we're seeing in front of us, and requires just a little more effort on our part.
- nor can I, nor, I suspect can PPT, but you have missed his point.
If you're referring back to discussion regarding flying through the flight director, it may come down to operational differences in technique from one operator to another. I rather think that regardless of whether one elects to discontinue calls and remove the FD completely or not, the technique remains the same, and flying through the director becomes nothing more than simply utilizing all the resources one has before him rather than blindly following only one.
This then, points to the larger discussion regardin loss of automation, because whereas the transition to flying the airplane should be seamless in the case of the FD (where one is continually scanning and not just following the automation), so it is with all components. Loss of the autothrottle or autopilot or AFCS means little more than flying through those systems and continuing manually.
Perhaps your point is that it's lacking today, and that may be the case. I would hope not. I've seen some glaring examples of basic skils lacking or rusting away in the cockpit, but in my limited experience and view, those cases are by far the minority.
As for the FD issue itself, whether I display it or not, I still need to request headings be set, airspeeds be set, etc...and thus not a lot has changed between having it on or off. If it's truly completely failed then of course one will shut it off and remove the distraction...but otherwise I'll keep flying through it as need be. Was that part of the point or did I miss that, too?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Scandiland
Posts: 480
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok I see what you mean Guppy. Ofcourse, when flying with the aid of the FD, I'll check that the speed the pitch is giving me is something I can live with and that it headingwise is doing the correct thing. It's something that you pick up when doing your basic scan. I interpeted your "flying through the FD" as flying against it, ie. turning the plane in one direction and having the FD going somewhere else just because there's a lazyness of not setting the FD correctly.
Despite our SOP, I see it frequently and that's what I thought you were referring to.
/LnS
Despite our SOP, I see it frequently and that's what I thought you were referring to.
/LnS
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Cedar Rapids
Age: 49
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of this is very good, but I want to interject a (non safety related) point. I came into this game to fly airplanes, and the beat up 747s I am dragging around the world with lying flight directors do rather fit the bill. When I am forced into the -400 video game, I will seriously look at a desk somewhere, or look for a job as a pilot somewhere. Not to say that the operators of the new (working) automated aircraft don't do a complex job, and do it well, it just happens not to be a job that is particularly attractive to me.
As to the original post, are some pilots scared to fly by hand, I am not, but I think some of my captains are beginning to be...
As to the original post, are some pilots scared to fly by hand, I am not, but I think some of my captains are beginning to be...
I thought that the CDI WAS the FD
just a quick question----
don't some companies altogether forbid handflying?--I remember--some discussion of this on an earlier thread--but I may have my wires crossed--I'm not talking about RVSM--I mean they feel that "automatic flight should/must be engaged as soon as practical to ensure blah, blah, blah",--something like that
just a quick question----
don't some companies altogether forbid handflying?--I remember--some discussion of this on an earlier thread--but I may have my wires crossed--I'm not talking about RVSM--I mean they feel that "automatic flight should/must be engaged as soon as practical to ensure blah, blah, blah",--something like that
Psychophysiological entity
So, no horizons and just basic instruments would prove a bit of a challenge then?
Years ago, I got flamed for suggesting that One could fly jet transport aircraft when down to basics including a turn and slip indicator, yet I'd done it dozens of times in a DC3, and a few times in a 1-11. Sure, we were empty - cos the timed turns were a bit jerky, but it was do-able.
When one really rough night all the screens went out, my -soon to be captain - F/O, was 'Not at all happy.' to use his words as he pulled and reset circuit breakers, yet I felt quite flush having a standby horizon...Luxury, as they say.
Frankly, I'm horrified by the contents of this thread. Things are a lot worse than I realized. Roll on the days of Captain Black-Box. Won't happen? Think on.
Despite the valid comments about the security issues, electronics and software are becoming more and more secure. We're not dealing with a system that's literally connected to the entire world, but an enclosed system, that in 20 years will be so 'intelligent' that an intruder will have to first get at it by some extraordinary means, but then hack some of the most difficult software on the planet. Remember, there'll be no cockpit to break into, just electronics bays hidden deep in the works.
Of course security will still be breakable, but compared to two or so, possibly tired, fallible mortals...it'll be no contest.
A flight manager on board? Now, there's the weak link.
Years ago, I got flamed for suggesting that One could fly jet transport aircraft when down to basics including a turn and slip indicator, yet I'd done it dozens of times in a DC3, and a few times in a 1-11. Sure, we were empty - cos the timed turns were a bit jerky, but it was do-able.
When one really rough night all the screens went out, my -soon to be captain - F/O, was 'Not at all happy.' to use his words as he pulled and reset circuit breakers, yet I felt quite flush having a standby horizon...Luxury, as they say.
Frankly, I'm horrified by the contents of this thread. Things are a lot worse than I realized. Roll on the days of Captain Black-Box. Won't happen? Think on.
Despite the valid comments about the security issues, electronics and software are becoming more and more secure. We're not dealing with a system that's literally connected to the entire world, but an enclosed system, that in 20 years will be so 'intelligent' that an intruder will have to first get at it by some extraordinary means, but then hack some of the most difficult software on the planet. Remember, there'll be no cockpit to break into, just electronics bays hidden deep in the works.
Of course security will still be breakable, but compared to two or so, possibly tired, fallible mortals...it'll be no contest.
A flight manager on board? Now, there's the weak link.
Quite appalling that so many tales of these Nintendo-kids have appeared on this thread - a sad reflection on modern times if they haven't ever flown the aircraft manually.
About 6 years ago when I was instructing on the VC10, on the first trip in the aeroplane the copilots would fly the thing manually until top of climb in the mid-'30s, then a period of straight and level followed by a 30 deg AoB turn. Just so that they knew how hard it was and the reason for the autopilots!
Normally we flew the thing on autopilot until 'beacon outbound'; from then on it was all manual - although the FE would set the thruse setting called by the pilot since it took both hands to move the yoke.
Remember a TV series a few years ago about pilots competing to fly a Lancaster? Everything from a young PPL holder to an airline pilot - and one of the worst was the airline copilot whose manual flying skills were pretty dire.
And this certainly won't get better with the advent of the Microsoft Pilot Licence.
All this CRM headshrinker horse$hit is unlikely to help when all the little screens take time out either.
About 6 years ago when I was instructing on the VC10, on the first trip in the aeroplane the copilots would fly the thing manually until top of climb in the mid-'30s, then a period of straight and level followed by a 30 deg AoB turn. Just so that they knew how hard it was and the reason for the autopilots!
Normally we flew the thing on autopilot until 'beacon outbound'; from then on it was all manual - although the FE would set the thruse setting called by the pilot since it took both hands to move the yoke.
Remember a TV series a few years ago about pilots competing to fly a Lancaster? Everything from a young PPL holder to an airline pilot - and one of the worst was the airline copilot whose manual flying skills were pretty dire.
And this certainly won't get better with the advent of the Microsoft Pilot Licence.
All this CRM headshrinker horse$hit is unlikely to help when all the little screens take time out either.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,095
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry Loose Rivets but I strongly disagree. You may have the technology for a black box captain that is terrorist proof but you will never get it past the public and you will never get it insured.
Psychophysiological entity
Of course, I can't see into the future, but as far as insurance is concerned, I can envisage a time when insurers won't want people that can't fly, even being near, let alone touching the controls of 'their' aircraft.
It's just statistics...if the black boxes can do it better, they will be the ones that get the job as far as the underwriters go. The public? Mmmm...might have to have an actor or two seen boarding before the flight.
Sounds a bit like we've already reached that situation.
That was nasty, but if there is a single pilot boarding $150,000,000 worth of kit, that can't master the darn thing if something goes wrong, then...well, if the cap fits and all that.
Remember, there will be hundreds of man-years going into the programming. The amassed total of man's knowledge gained over 100 years of flying. A pilot can take up just so much history, but a black box will be able to apply the logic of every known accident...ever. Chess? One big difference.
When IBM and others set out to beat chess champions, they did a fair job, but certainly did not win all the time. There are two reasons that this shouldn't give comfort to pilots. One is of course that software and its associated chips are now so much more powerful than they were 5 years ago, almost an exponential rise in processing power, giving 'What ifs' a total virtual library.
The other comparison is that the chess players had time to search for possibilities...far too much time to for a quick reaction to a nasty situation in an aircraft. The black box could search for every known piece of history, allow it to modify the prime parameters if needed, and do all this in much less than a second. With world cooperation, it would never, ever, make a mistake...mistake...mistake...
It's just statistics...if the black boxes can do it better, they will be the ones that get the job as far as the underwriters go. The public? Mmmm...might have to have an actor or two seen boarding before the flight.
Sounds a bit like we've already reached that situation.
That was nasty, but if there is a single pilot boarding $150,000,000 worth of kit, that can't master the darn thing if something goes wrong, then...well, if the cap fits and all that.
Remember, there will be hundreds of man-years going into the programming. The amassed total of man's knowledge gained over 100 years of flying. A pilot can take up just so much history, but a black box will be able to apply the logic of every known accident...ever. Chess? One big difference.
When IBM and others set out to beat chess champions, they did a fair job, but certainly did not win all the time. There are two reasons that this shouldn't give comfort to pilots. One is of course that software and its associated chips are now so much more powerful than they were 5 years ago, almost an exponential rise in processing power, giving 'What ifs' a total virtual library.
The other comparison is that the chess players had time to search for possibilities...far too much time to for a quick reaction to a nasty situation in an aircraft. The black box could search for every known piece of history, allow it to modify the prime parameters if needed, and do all this in much less than a second. With world cooperation, it would never, ever, make a mistake...mistake...mistake...
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: England
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent discussion. I recall cruising at 35,000 somewhere over Europe 20 years ago. Lovely day and I advised the newspaper reading No 2 that I would fly manually without even the aid of the FD including no autothrottle and tracking the various VOR's on the flight plan for the next five minutes or so. He sat up white with fright and said "If that is so I must put on my shoulder harness." He was genuinely frightened. A few minutes later I re-connected the automatics and he let out his pent up breath. "That was nice flying he said - I have never flown by hand above 5000 ft and never switched off the FD ...."
I am convinced that most pilots who protest that the automatics way is the only safe way, are deluding themselves. Either they are too damned lazy to keep their hand in despite numerous opportunities to do so - and I suspect the majority fit this bill; Or they are simply incompetent for the task - they know it but would never admit it.
One of the reasons I `ve remained a military pilot. I want to be able to hand fly when the circumstances warrant it, and not be a glorified computer programmer/autopilot monkey.
I am convinced that most pilots who protest that the automatics way is the only safe way, are deluding themselves. Either they are too damned lazy to keep their hand in despite numerous opportunities to do so - and I suspect the majority fit this bill; Or they are simply incompetent for the task - they know it but would never admit it.
One of the reasons I `ve remained a military pilot. I want to be able to hand fly when the circumstances warrant it, and not be a glorified computer programmer/autopilot monkey.