Taliesin
Final Assembly Line stage 1
In Thrust we trust
Posts: 228
|
Post by Taliesin on Dec 3, 2015 16:17:23 GMT 1
My question was targeted at situations like AF447 or this accident here. Couldn't it be possible to harvest core data from the remaining sensors and systems that still enable the aircraft to do some basic recovery maneuvre? You could even keep the pilots perfectly in the loop by only starting it on demand with a push button command. Sure it's possible to harvest core data, but how do you know they are correct, or being correctly interpreted? I think you should take a look at this 20 year old lesson on automation dependency: The basic lesson here is that there is an appropriate level of automation for every situation. When you are at FL360 and everything is going well, go for the highest level of automation. When you are at 4000ft and ATC switches your runway, go for the lowest. Similarly, when you are at FL360 and things go south, don't go for higher automation, go for lower. I don't know how to put it any other way. If we were talking about a drone or an airplane without a pilot, sure, we would need backup systems and backup-backup systems. But then we're taking the pilots out of the equation and it's a whole different conversation altogether.
|
|
|
Post by stealthmanbob on Dec 3, 2015 16:20:16 GMT 1
Yeah discovery channel nice. My question was targeted at situations like AF447 or this accident here. Couldn't it be possible to harvest core data from the remaining sensors and systems that still enable the aircraft to do some basic recovery maneuvre? You could even keep the pilots perfectly in the loop by only starting it on demand with a push button command. The problem is the computer does not know which sensors to trust or not, is one giving a false reading, or two, or all of them ? Aircraft could be flown from ground stations (as UAVs are) or automated. The reason we have and pay pilots is that they are in the aircraft, and should use their training and senses to deal with the unexpected / unknown situations.
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Dec 3, 2015 16:29:46 GMT 1
These pilots were trained and examined to be proper pilots for their aircraft. They did their best. But in that situation with the knowledge they had and the information left they have been unable to solve the problem. I'm not blaming them. I just observe it didn't work as planned. So if they lose computers, protections and displays, get bells and whistles and warnings, experience g's and such they are unable to resolve the situation with what is left. Instead of having this repeated all over again I wonder, what sensors are there, maybe we need something like a separate box with standby emergency sensors, that enable this aircraft to recover from it's upset, at least better than with humans until they can take over again.
Today jet-drones can autoland on moving aicraft carriers. There must be a way to solve this. Any solution will be helpful to all manufacturers. I'm no "Airbus FBW-sceptic" or something.
|
|
mjoelnir
in service - 2 years
Posts: 4,089
|
Post by mjoelnir on Dec 3, 2015 16:39:23 GMT 1
These pilots were trained and examined to be proper pilots for their aircraft. They did their best. But in that situation with the knowledge they had and the information left they have been unable to solve the problem. I'm not blaming them. I just observe it didn't work as planned. So if they lose computers, protections and displays, get bells and whistles and warnings, experience g's and such they are unable to resolve the situation with what is left. Instead of having this repeated all over again I wonder, what sensors are there, maybe we need something like a separate box with standby emergency sensors, that enable this aircraft to recover from it's upset, at least better than with humans until they can take over again. Today jet-drones can autoland on moving aicraft carriers. There must be a way to solve this. Any solution will be helpful to all manufacturers. I'm no "Airbus FBW-sceptic" or something. The automatic went off, not the flight instruments, not the sensors, perhaps pilots need to concentrate on flying instead of fault checking.
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Dec 3, 2015 16:47:43 GMT 1
Very good point.
|
|
Taliesin
Final Assembly Line stage 1
In Thrust we trust
Posts: 228
|
Post by Taliesin on Dec 3, 2015 18:04:52 GMT 1
These pilots were trained and examined to be proper pilots for their aircraft. They did their best. But in that situation with the knowledge they had and the information left they have been unable to solve the problem. I think that's exactly the problem, you have pilot training programs that produce automation managers and SOP robots, not pilots. So if they lose computers, protections and displays, get bells and whistles and warnings, experience g's and such they are unable to resolve the situation with what is left. You argue as if they the entire airplane had been falling to pieces beneath their feet. They had a rudder travel limiter fault, an FAC fault and Alternate Law, that's it. Everything else worked fine. If you follow modern CRM, with one pilot flying and one pilot trouble shooting, this whole incident is an entire non-event. This is not a mystery, we don't need to go back to the drawing board and re-think everything. We need better pilots. Pilots with an understanding of the airplane's energy state. Pilots who fly the plane first. Pilots who don't lose situational awareness over a simple fault. Most of all, we need pilots who recognise an approach to a stall or at the very least, recognise when they are in a stall and know how to get out of it. Someone who keeps pulling on the stick for a whopping 3 minutes, despite a continuous stall warning does not belong in a cockpit, period.
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Dec 4, 2015 10:01:05 GMT 1
So we need different training requirements and drills. Away from ECAM-slaves back to "fly the airplane" first and "I have control".
|
|
XWB
in service - 11 years
Posts: 16,115
|
Post by XWB on Dec 4, 2015 10:13:06 GMT 1
Not sure if I agree with you. Computers and automation are part of our evolution, I do not intend going back to the stone age. Remember, despite these crashes, flying is still much, much safer than ever before.
|
|
philidor
in service - 6 years
Posts: 8,950
|
Post by philidor on Dec 4, 2015 11:19:14 GMT 1
As I understand the issue, part of it is that we are still unable to fully modelise stall/post-stall situations, so that pilots cannot train for them in simulators. Training on small aircraft is recommanded, but does it solve the problem ?
|
|
|
Post by airboche on Dec 4, 2015 11:20:52 GMT 1
I have no final solution myself. I just feel uncomfortable looking at repeated crashes like these. Stall and no recovery. Airplane should have been capable to fly on. It must be possible to avoid this from happening again. Reminds me a bit of the years, when -differently educated- eastern block airline pilots got rushed into flying the A310 in the 1980s and 1990s. Some even without the proper language skills. There were famous incidents with upset aircraft where the pilots pulled the CBs because they did not understand what was going on. Luckily this got solved over the time. www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/tech_ops/read.main/270251/
|
|