Computer systems can be created using the combined knowledge and experience of all the best pilots. And frankly I do not want to rely on somebody's "decades of experience", such people tend to be cocky, and think they know everything and that they couldn't possibly be wrong.
The Tenerife disaster was caused by the most exprienced pilot of the airline. Besides even the best people have bad days. Computers do not have bad days.
Airbus studying Advanced TCAS
Moderator: Latest news team
And frankly I do not want to rely on somebody's "decades of experience", such people tend to be cocky, and think they know everything and that they couldn't possibly be wrong.
Ahh the stereotypical 1950's pilot. Yes, you are right in pinning down that generation. As most were former military pilots, they did tend to be very cocky. Now, airlines are split 50/50 between civilian and military pilots, and I have noticed in my experience that civilian pilots tend to be a lot more conservative in their decision making and do not have the "get the job done no matter what" mentality.
The Tenerife disaster was caused by the most exprienced pilot of the airline. Besides even the best people have bad days. Computers do not have bad days.
How many decades ago was that?? We have gone through many generations (we're on the 6th I think) of CRM training to prevent such accidents from happening. Besides, that was a communication problem, not an air-to-air collision. And no, computers do not have bad days, they just crash and shutdown when they feel like it.
Why is everyone so opposed to an advanced CDTI??? It gives the pilot the same display that ATC has (it was originally intended for use in "free-flight") which is much more info. than an automated TCAS will provide."What's this button do?? I don't know, push it and find out................."
You're wrong there, computers do not crash 'when they feel like it'. They either crash due to hardware failure (that's why planes have several identical computers), or due to bad software or hardware design (the latter can usually be worked around in software though).
As for the CDTI, I'm in no way opposed to it, I'm all for it. But don't misunderstand the automated TCAS, it should only engage when the auto-pilot is on. Perhaps it should have some delay so the pilot can respond to it before the system starts to change altitude by itself, I don't know how much time you normally have for things like that. I can imagine a message saying to the pilot 'I will change altitude to X in XX seconds, unless you disengage the autopilot first'.
As for the CDTI, I'm in no way opposed to it, I'm all for it. But don't misunderstand the automated TCAS, it should only engage when the auto-pilot is on. Perhaps it should have some delay so the pilot can respond to it before the system starts to change altitude by itself, I don't know how much time you normally have for things like that. I can imagine a message saying to the pilot 'I will change altitude to X in XX seconds, unless you disengage the autopilot first'.
That I would be more in favor of because it still keeps the pilot in the loop so to speak. Perhaps a compromise can be reached?Perhaps it should have some delay so the pilot can respond to it before the system starts to change altitude by itself, I don't know how much time you normally have for things like that. I can imagine a message saying to the pilot 'I will change altitude to X in XX seconds, unless you disengage the autopilot first'.
"What's this button do?? I don't know, push it and find out................."
-
foxtrot_lima_yankee
- Posts: 145
- Joined: 04 Nov 2005, 00:00
Do not agree with you about the pilot training part.
You say a better training is the solution to every safety problem.
Then how come the most well-known, experienced and beloved pilot in KLM s Flight Academy made such a great mistake as to get the KLM Jumbo he was flying against a Pan-Am Jumbo at the airport of Tenerife resulting in if not the worst, one of the worst accidents in aviation history?
On the other hand you are right to say that a pilot s training has a great influence n safety.
The pilot manuals all say that the pilot in command has the final authority as well as the full responsability of his aircraft.
For this reason pilots prefer to rely on themselves rather than on the machines (or computers) because of the little part in their brain saying: "what if the machine is wrong"?
Today s aircraft are becoming too complicated to fly without an appropriate computerised flight management system.
Therefore a good training consists on learning the students to rely on the aircraft they are flying as there is a greater chance that the modern machines will be giving the right information. (unless you are flying on the Wright-flyer.)
Weekly many near-misses happen all over the world. Unfortunately, they are not reported openly to the press unless any injuries are reported.
The traffic avoidance system, theoretically installed on all commercial aircraft today are a reliable system. Some of these systems give pilots the instruction "traffic, DESCEND" or "traffic, CLIMB". The pilots have the instinct to rely on this information.
Sometimes, ATC give the opposite orders to the pilot.
Pilots then get confused: the traffic avoidance systems are made to calculate both aircraft s altitude and to give orders according to this information.
ATC only have altitude indications to a reduced precision of the 300 feet margin, although pilots are supposed to listen to them.
Then again pilots worry about the opposed aircraft s pilot s judgement and decisions.
Confusion and stress gain the pilots leading to unsafe situations.
If accurate systems can be manufactured, tested and approuved, I do not see why not to welcome these on our future vessels.
Computers do not have stress and if they are well programmed, they can react faster and more accurately, creating a greater safety-margin.
It would also be nice if these systems could be engaged appart from the auto-pilot, and that the avoidance courses distance margin could be set to precise values from the pilot, in order to be able to use it in situations where aircraft get closer to eachother. ("Near airports"setting,"On approach" setting, ...)
Being able to disengage them would also be nice.
A little bit like an adjustable parking sensor.
Many were sceptic about Airbus' new joysticked cockpit.
Many pilots are satisfied with this system now.
Many are sceptic about this new traffic avoidance system.
Everyone will feel safer soon.
You say a better training is the solution to every safety problem.
Then how come the most well-known, experienced and beloved pilot in KLM s Flight Academy made such a great mistake as to get the KLM Jumbo he was flying against a Pan-Am Jumbo at the airport of Tenerife resulting in if not the worst, one of the worst accidents in aviation history?
On the other hand you are right to say that a pilot s training has a great influence n safety.
The pilot manuals all say that the pilot in command has the final authority as well as the full responsability of his aircraft.
For this reason pilots prefer to rely on themselves rather than on the machines (or computers) because of the little part in their brain saying: "what if the machine is wrong"?
Today s aircraft are becoming too complicated to fly without an appropriate computerised flight management system.
Therefore a good training consists on learning the students to rely on the aircraft they are flying as there is a greater chance that the modern machines will be giving the right information. (unless you are flying on the Wright-flyer.)
Weekly many near-misses happen all over the world. Unfortunately, they are not reported openly to the press unless any injuries are reported.
The traffic avoidance system, theoretically installed on all commercial aircraft today are a reliable system. Some of these systems give pilots the instruction "traffic, DESCEND" or "traffic, CLIMB". The pilots have the instinct to rely on this information.
Sometimes, ATC give the opposite orders to the pilot.
Pilots then get confused: the traffic avoidance systems are made to calculate both aircraft s altitude and to give orders according to this information.
ATC only have altitude indications to a reduced precision of the 300 feet margin, although pilots are supposed to listen to them.
Then again pilots worry about the opposed aircraft s pilot s judgement and decisions.
Confusion and stress gain the pilots leading to unsafe situations.
If accurate systems can be manufactured, tested and approuved, I do not see why not to welcome these on our future vessels.
Computers do not have stress and if they are well programmed, they can react faster and more accurately, creating a greater safety-margin.
It would also be nice if these systems could be engaged appart from the auto-pilot, and that the avoidance courses distance margin could be set to precise values from the pilot, in order to be able to use it in situations where aircraft get closer to eachother. ("Near airports"setting,"On approach" setting, ...)
Being able to disengage them would also be nice.
A little bit like an adjustable parking sensor.
Many were sceptic about Airbus' new joysticked cockpit.
Many pilots are satisfied with this system now.
Many are sceptic about this new traffic avoidance system.
Everyone will feel safer soon.
The traffic avoidance system, theoretically installed on all commercial aircraft today are a reliable system. Some of these systems give pilots the instruction "traffic, DESCEND" or "traffic, CLIMB". The pilots have the instinct to rely on this information.
Sometimes, ATC give the opposite orders to the pilot.
Pilots then get confused: the traffic avoidance systems are made to calculate both aircraft s altitude and to give orders according to this information.
ATC only have altitude indications to a reduced precision of the 300 feet margin, although pilots are supposed to listen to them.
Then again pilots worry about the opposed aircraft s pilot s judgement and decisions.
Confusion and stress gain the pilots leading to unsafe situations.
After the mid-air collision in Europe that had this scenario, pilots are now instructed to follow the TCAS even if ATC tells them to do something else.
Many were sceptic about Airbus' new joysticked cockpit.
Many pilots are satisfied with this system now.
Many are sceptic about this new traffic avoidance system.
Everyone will feel safer soon.
Be careful with generalities. I'm sure if you explained the way the hard-limit FBW system works to passengers, not as many people would be as enthusiastic as you seem to portray.
"What's this button do?? I don't know, push it and find out................."
Requiring less skill means that the pilots do not need to understand why they cannot operate in certain regions of flight. Are you honestly telling me that you would prefer to have less skilled pilots?!?!?!!? If the pilots do not understand the complexities of operating aircraft in certain conditions, if an emergency occurs, they may not have enough knowledge to know how to, say, fly the airplane without the aid of the computer. If Airbus chooses to make their airplanes easy enough to fly that chimps could fly it, fine, you'll never see me on one of them.
"What's this button do?? I don't know, push it and find out................."
That is more a matter of training than a matter of technology. In regular flight you never get anywhere near those limits anyway, so to really know the limits of the plane, you need additional training. Might as well train lots of non-FBW-assisted scenarios as well then.
I do understand your reservations though. Here's another one for you: imagine <enter your least-favourite airplane manufacturer here> would modify their FBW systems so you don't have to use the rudder at all.
I do understand your reservations though. Here's another one for you: imagine <enter your least-favourite airplane manufacturer here> would modify their FBW systems so you don't have to use the rudder at all.
Some new FAA regulations and training requirements upcoming!
http://www.aia-aerospace.org/pdf/cast_e ... 020206.pdf
http://www.aia-aerospace.org/pdf/cast_e ... 020206.pdf
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
Some new FAA regulations and training requirements upcoming!
http://www.aia-aerospace.org/pdf/cast_e ... 020206.pdf
http://www.aia-aerospace.org/pdf/cast_e ... 020206.pdf
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.
Airbus has now stated the pilot will be able to overide the computer!
guess they are not so confident in their systems as they thought!
Bozin added that, in some circumstances, pilots would still be advised to take control of the plane back from the autopilot... although such occurrences would be rare.
So, it would seem automated collision avoidance might soon become a reality... at least on Airbus planes. A spokesman for Boeing told the Wall Street Journal the company would remain "aligned with our fundamental philosophy," which "believes the captain is in charge" of handling the airliner in event of an emergency.
guess they are not so confident in their systems as they thought!
Bozin added that, in some circumstances, pilots would still be advised to take control of the plane back from the autopilot... although such occurrences would be rare.
So, it would seem automated collision avoidance might soon become a reality... at least on Airbus planes. A spokesman for Boeing told the Wall Street Journal the company would remain "aligned with our fundamental philosophy," which "believes the captain is in charge" of handling the airliner in event of an emergency.
There are no strangers in the world, just friends we have yet to meet.