School Project
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Forest
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
School Project
From 'Prober', one time P1 on VC9, HS25, B75/76 TRI.
So long retired I now no longer even get staff travel!
A grandson has a school project on the future of travel and he proposes examining the likelihood of pilotless aircraft.
What I am seeking is a reasonably reputable source for statistics of probable human causes versus mechanical causes of airframes being bent or destroyed over the past maybe fifty years. Don't worry, I am not a traitor to the cause - I will ensure that the last comment will concern the length of the queue to get on to such an aircraft.
Any help would be much appreciated.
Prober
So long retired I now no longer even get staff travel!
A grandson has a school project on the future of travel and he proposes examining the likelihood of pilotless aircraft.
What I am seeking is a reasonably reputable source for statistics of probable human causes versus mechanical causes of airframes being bent or destroyed over the past maybe fifty years. Don't worry, I am not a traitor to the cause - I will ensure that the last comment will concern the length of the queue to get on to such an aircraft.
Any help would be much appreciated.
Prober
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Wherever I lay my hat
Posts: 3,494
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
What exactly does he expect those statistics to show? All aircraft have been piloted by humans for the last 100+ years, so obviously there will be a lot of crashes due to human error. That doesn't mean that machines would have done it better.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Forest
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
School Project
Thanks, T54A and I will make a start there. The angle which I feel should be highlighted is not so much the disasters - we all hear about those, but it's the ones we do not hear about - the disasters averted because there actually WAS a pilot there. How the boy will do this, time will tell.
Prober
Prober
Last edited by Prober; 1st May 2022 at 19:39. Reason: Spelling - see me after.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: An Island Province
Posts: 1,226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prober, the links below might be a bit heavy for a school project. The debate is open, continuous; and without solution until it happens!
There could be greater value in debating the issues, man or machine, or more likely man and machine where the machine has greater emphasis on computational capability.
Statistics have little meaning without context.
There may be value in finding the very old ICAO diagram (unscaled) of how the primary causes of accidents have change from technology to the human; but again beware context, subjectivity. The need of a systems view.
Then consider that diagram squashed into recent the safety statistics, and compared with the last 20 years such that whatever the relative cause, there are very few of accidents with cause, man or machine.
Airbus publishes a useful review, https://accidentstats.airbus.com/sit...-1958-2020.pdf page 17 shows the proportional factor reduction of 10 for all accidents, thus technical or human components (ICAO digram), are relatively very very small. Beware the law of small numbers (fallacy) we tend to make more of small values even though not justified. The analysis also considers technological advances, new generation aircraft.
Why is the low safety value flattening out, can this ever be reduced, is this due to the human or the wider operational system? i.e. there will always be accidents even without the human, but will the rate be any better than with the human who contributes so many hidden ‘saves’ in the much larger area above the safety line.
A good subject to debate, but not to conclude.
Re the issues we don't hear about, because there are no reports, then a better guide is to search for articles by Hollnagel on looking for things that go right (many refs, ppt simpler ones)
A recent HF view is at https://aviation.vision/wp-content/u...hite-Paper.pdf
Note than the majority of views focus on AI and consider today's problems, not really forward thinking. The one item on IA (Intelligent Assistnce) is more likely, but it still involves the human.
Also;
https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...ech-Report.pdf
https://safety177496371.wordpress.co...ritime-safety/
There could be greater value in debating the issues, man or machine, or more likely man and machine where the machine has greater emphasis on computational capability.
Statistics have little meaning without context.
There may be value in finding the very old ICAO diagram (unscaled) of how the primary causes of accidents have change from technology to the human; but again beware context, subjectivity. The need of a systems view.
Then consider that diagram squashed into recent the safety statistics, and compared with the last 20 years such that whatever the relative cause, there are very few of accidents with cause, man or machine.
Airbus publishes a useful review, https://accidentstats.airbus.com/sit...-1958-2020.pdf page 17 shows the proportional factor reduction of 10 for all accidents, thus technical or human components (ICAO digram), are relatively very very small. Beware the law of small numbers (fallacy) we tend to make more of small values even though not justified. The analysis also considers technological advances, new generation aircraft.
Why is the low safety value flattening out, can this ever be reduced, is this due to the human or the wider operational system? i.e. there will always be accidents even without the human, but will the rate be any better than with the human who contributes so many hidden ‘saves’ in the much larger area above the safety line.
A good subject to debate, but not to conclude.
Re the issues we don't hear about, because there are no reports, then a better guide is to search for articles by Hollnagel on looking for things that go right (many refs, ppt simpler ones)
A recent HF view is at https://aviation.vision/wp-content/u...hite-Paper.pdf
Note than the majority of views focus on AI and consider today's problems, not really forward thinking. The one item on IA (Intelligent Assistnce) is more likely, but it still involves the human.
Also;
https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...ech-Report.pdf
https://safety177496371.wordpress.co...ritime-safety/
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Forest
Posts: 142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you all, especially alf/h for the detailed response. I agree, no conclusion can really be reached - the size of the queue rushing to get on will settle the argument and we can leave the thread there.
A grateful Prober
A grateful Prober
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: An Island Province
Posts: 1,226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I overlooked two important reports:-
https://web.archive.org/web/20200717...Automatica.pdf
and 30 yrs later
http://johnrooksby.org/papers/ECCE20...er_ironies.pdf
and 30 yrs hence
…
https://web.archive.org/web/20200717...Automatica.pdf
and 30 yrs later
http://johnrooksby.org/papers/ECCE20...er_ironies.pdf
and 30 yrs hence
…
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About 12 or 13 years ago a Lufthansa led survey by a German university looked at in house data from the company pilots regarding the last time they suffered confusion/error/incident. Lufthansa made it err, rewarding to take part. Approx. 3000 responses came in.
University came up with a pretty standard pie chart of incident analysis but they also added a new chunk of pie - Technical/Human which I suspect ties in with Alf's observations. It proved a sizeable chunk but with a single airline group looked at not huge numbers.
Rob
University came up with a pretty standard pie chart of incident analysis but they also added a new chunk of pie - Technical/Human which I suspect ties in with Alf's observations. It proved a sizeable chunk but with a single airline group looked at not huge numbers.
Rob
