General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre older experienced pilots, who don't trust the fly by wire computer, more dangerous than
younger less experienced pilots but believe and rely on the computer???
IMO, you can't fly these current planes without the computer, and I also understand the human instinct to bypass the computer if you don't accept the ability of a computer to fly these planes.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts)Anyone who is a commercial airline pilot, who is actively flying these days, all were trained that way.
The problem is where they were trained. A lot of people train in the South because the weather is nicer all year round, but that leads to problems when they fly up North, where various icing occurs. It's a question where the pilots were trained and how they were trained that is paramount. Pilots are trained to handle spatial disorientation and trust the instruments. It's only when they believe those instruments are lying, is where they try to override it. Frozen pitots are common and flying into a thunderhead causes a multitude of false signals. When experiencing spatial disorientation, which I was trained to do as a young pup who never became an airline pilot after going for training (due to the depressing life of pilots - living out of a suitcase, the slog gaining hours, and the rampant alcoholism back in the early 80's). You can think you are straight and level when in a 30 degree dive.
So, my bet is on the level and type of training.
Oh, and as for the ageism portion... I'd trust a pilot in their 50's, whose seen everything hundreds of times.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,209 posts)
Capt.Rocky300
(1,005 posts)CK_John
(10,005 posts)Capt.Rocky300
(1,005 posts)and consider them to be extremely poor reporting and obviously written by people who don't know anything about aviation or airplanes. I question the motivations and accuracy of anything that comes out of that region regarding this crash or the Malaysian Airlines flight that disappeared.
I was very disappointed to learn the recorders would be handled by local agencies and not the U.S. or Australian authorities. As I understand it, there have been only press releases, no neutral third party has had access to the recorders.
And one more thing to consider from personal experience. When you're getting the shit kicked out of you by turbulence the last thing you're gonna do is get out of your seat and look for circuit breakers on the overhead or back bulkhead panels to shut up the warnings. Besides, everything is jumping around so bad you can't read the tiny lettering below the breakers much less be able to get ahold of the corrects one(s) to pull. The breakers are small and there are row upon rows of them and no one memorizes the locations other than just a few you deal with on a semi regular basis. And the augmentation computers don't fall into that category.
Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Many older pilots rely on their experience rather than the instrumentation anyway.
jberryhill
(62,444 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Are you a pilot?
Because the thing is, not all instruments are reliable all of the time.
And an experienced pilot knows that.
I'll take an experienced pilot's opinion over a non-flyer's opinion every single time.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)Never flew fixed wing, flew rotary wing (helicopters) my whole military career and some after I retired, but many times I would rely on what my eyes were telling me, not what some instrument or computer was telling me.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)I wasn't talking about fighter jets.
But, if humans can't take the potential G force of today's fighters -- as you state -- then why are humans flying them?
I know quite a few Air Force pilots, and not one of them has ever complained that they passed out while flying a jet.
GGJohn
(9,951 posts)every fighter pilot in just about every country wears them.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)center next year.
link:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-26/us-tests-f-16-fighter-jet-without-pilot/4981852
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)I would expect a more experienced pilot to recognize a failure quicker and be able to respond better.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Look at this incident.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Transat_Flight_236
The pilots were warned of unequal fuel in the tanks. They consulted the manual, and it said to have the computer equal out the fuel. No big deal. They had no reason to suspect a fuel leak. In the old days, the pilot would have looked at the instruments and the first question would have been. "Why is there less fuel in the right wing than the left?"
A fuel leak would have been the suspected culprit in ten seconds, perhaps as much as twenty. But precious time was lost while the pilots tried to manage the computer, instead of managing the plane.
These were both experienced pilots, and has spent many thousands of hours watching the computer fly the plane. When something went wrong, they waited for the computer or the manual or someone else to tell them what it meant. By the time they figured out what was happening, it was nearly too late. Once they were aware of the problem, they did a hell of a job getting the plane down with everyone alive. But in the old days they would have shunted the fuel out of the tank much sooner, suspecting a problem like a fuel leak and flown on one engine while they worked to get down in an emergency situation. Landing on one engine is not easy, but it is a lot easier than landing with no engines.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Look at the Air France Airbus crash. The co-pilot was reacting instinctively. He wanted to go up, because down was death. The relief co-pilot who was sitting in the captain's chair was still trying to figure out what was going on. The aircraft went into a stall, the relief pilot saw it, and said go down. The co pilot with his hand on the stick kept pulling back. In a Boeing Jet of the old days where the actions of one were duplicated on the other pilot's controls, everyone would have known instantly that the stick was all the way back. The relief pilot could have taken over, and said. My aircraft I've got it. But because you have to ask the guy what he is doing, and you don't know what he's doing while you're trying to figure it out you die.
Look at the Airbus A-380 engine explosion of Quantis. The pilots spent an hour acknowledging all the failed systems from the engine failure before they got to find out how the plane would react to control inputs. It took an hour to get to start.
The computer is really good 99.9% of the time. But when that .1% comes up you need an experienced pilot who is aware of the situation, and understands what the plane is doing, if not why.
Look at the difference between a survivable incident that seems like a death sentence, and an accident where the death sentence was written because the pilot was confused by the conflicting information.
Don't get me wrong, Boeing's planes have had computer issues that led to death too. Bergainair flight 301. A blocked Pitot tube caused conflicting alarms to go off. Overspeed which tells the pilot that the plane is in danger of flying apart in mid air. Then the stick shaker which tells the pilot that the plane isn't flying, but falling in a stall. You can't have both. So the computer is screaming at you to slow down, and the stick is shaking violently telling you as a pilot you must speed up. It's dark, and you're still trying to get a grasp of the problem and what needs to be done to correct it.
The problem with the computer is that there is always a situation that the computer hasn't been programmed for. Then like the Air France crash in the middle of the Atlantic. The computer throws it's hands up and says you fly it man, I'm out of here for now.
While the Pilot is being a computer software troubleshooter trying to figure out what is going on, like the folks on the Tech Support hotline who are asking you a dozen stupid questions. "Have you plugged the computer in? Does the outlet have power?" The plane is not flying, it's crashing.
In short. I don't think the problem is that the pilots don't want the computer flying. I think the problem is that when something goes wrong, the pilot is spending too much time trying to fix the computer, instead of remembering he has to fly the plane. Imagine you go from casual and calm sitting relaxed to alarms, flashing lights, bucking turbulence, and conflicting information on little screens all of which is demanding you attend to it first. It's very confusing, like walking into a disco with the strobe lights going from a Zen Garden. It takes precious seconds for you to start to get a grasp of the situation, and then if you mis diagnose the situation, you're going to cause a crash, instead of saving the plane, and the people.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I think there is another facet to the problem that deserved it's own reply. Stick time.
In the old days, Pilots spent the entire flight with their hands on the controls, their feet on the pedals. There was no automatic pilot. So when a pilot said he had five thousand hours in that type of plane, that was five thousand hours with hands and feet on the controls getting a feel of the aircraft, and experience in all sorts of weather and conditions.
Today the Pilot says s/he has 5,000 hours in that kind of aircraft, we forget that for 4,960 of those hours, the auto pilot was flying the plane, and they were sitting and monitoring the computer. In other words, when things go wrong, the pilots are desperate for the computer to take over again, because that is what they have done for almost ever minute of their long years of experience flying the plane.
I think that best describes the autopilot disconnect accidents. The pilots have hundreds, and often even thousands of hours of time, watching a computer do something.
I work with very heavy equipment. When I train someone I start by getting them used to hitting the emergency stop button. I tell them when something goes wrong, hit the damned button. If someone yells stop on the radio, don't waste a second trying to figure out why, just hit the button. While you are trying to figure out why someone yelled stop, people could be dying.
If the computer control is acting up, hit the damned button. If you see that things are not going as you expect, stop and take time to figure it out. But we aren't flying, and the time you take trying to figure out what is going on are the most precious seconds you will ever have.
The time a pilot has flying used to be very important. However today those high hour counts don't impress me as much. Because all but a handful of those hours are spent in the chair watching the computer fly the plane. Many planes have an autoland setting, and the F-18 has an auto launch system that the pilot is required to use when launching from a carrier. Again, the computers make it possible to do some amazing things with the aircraft. But they also go from being a crutch to hold someone up, to an escalator that carries them all the way to their destination.
backscatter712
(26,355 posts)He'll be as comfortable flying with the computer as he is flying manually, and should know exactly what the software is doing.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)experience in actual flying or a lifetime playing with joy sticks and computer games???
IMO, the problem in all mentioned situations was time lost because the experience pilot didn't have mechanical memory of the computer systems.
I believe that we have to make computer training and control now the most needed training. Drone pilots may be the people to have as airline pilots.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)Drone Pilots know if the airplane goes out of control, it will crash essentially harmlessly, and then another will be sent up for him to control.
Old school pilots used to say they were very worried about a crash, because they were at the front of the plane, and the first to arrive at the scene of the crash.
Back in the old days, when controls were wires and pulleys, the pilot could feel the plane talking to him. A vibration in the stick could tell him that there was a problem in the wing. A small shudder when he turned left told him that the elevators had an issue. Pilots flew by the seat of their pants in those days. Obviously that is not suitable with large aircraft. But the hands on time is worth it's weight in gold. People trust the computer not to screw up.
Let's look at drivers as an example. Everyone knows that teenagers have faster reflexes. They are faster than my own. They are at their physical peak of performance. From the age of twenty on, their reflexes get slower, not faster. The reason they have the most accidents is not because of reaction time, it's experience. They don't know what to do with those lightning quick reflexes. Where the older driver knows what to do, because they have been through it many times before. They've had the back end break loose and they know how it feels. They've had the car slide, wheels spin, and people cut them off.
I may be a half step slower, but I know what to do with that step. I know where to put it, and where to avoid putting it.
Now, a Pilot that has thousands of hours watching the computer fly is much like our teenager above. They don't have much time dealing with problems, so they make mistakes. The answer is not more computers, but more time giving people that vital experience that is the difference between the teenaged driver and the thirty five year old driver. If the computers drove the cars, and the "driver" managed the computer systems, they would be no better than the teenager if something happened. Because they don't have the experience of all those years. They don't know what the car feels like under them. They haven't felt the wheel pull one way as a tire lost pressure. They would make the same mistakes the teenager would, because despite the years behind the wheel, they don't drive much, the computer does.
Helicopter pilots are starting to make some of the same mistakes, because Autopilot systems have been developed for the Helicopters. It used to be they were the best pilots, because there was no autopilot system and the thousands of hours was always with their hands on the sticks and their feet on the pedals. They could feel the Helicopter talking to them. Now, they are supposed to let the computer fly, the Insurance Company demands it, and take over only if there is a problem. But the problem finds someone with next to no actual experience flying with their hands and feet and eyes and the seat of their pants. Because those thousands of hours were no more demanding than if you were doing so like your drone pilot in front of a computer screen.
Set up the flight simulator at home. Get the plane in the air and tell the computer to fly it. Leave the room, it doesn't matter if you're there, the computer is in charge. But if something happens, now you have to fly the plane, and one that isn't behaving properly. Now, you need to be there, and need to know the plane, how it is supposed to respond, versus how it is actually responding. You need to know how the damned thing flies normally, so you can detect the smallest change when it is abnormal.
More hands on time, more experience. Simulators are great, better than risking a plane full of people, but to make the simulator really useful, the pilot needs those thousands of hours flying by hand, not monitoring the computer. It would be as if you were suddenly in the cockpit of a Formula One racer in the rain headed for the wall. You don't know how the car drives normally, so you have no idea how to get it out of the situation it's in. You would hit the wall, and probably die. Because you never had a chance to put the years of experience driving to work. You had no instinctive feeling of how the car was supposed to drive.
CK_John
(10,005 posts)charge. The only hope we have is to demand more simulator training and more reactive simulators that give the feel of the plane.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)No one thought an Airbus jet would have Pitot trouble at altitude. If it did, the heater would melt the ice in a minute. No biggie, any pilot can fly for a minute right?
The real problem is when you are facing something not covered in step by step checklist style. There you have your experience to guide you. But if your experience is mostly watching a computer fly, then you will want to return to that instinctively.
Computers are excellent aides, but they are supposed to follow orders, not give them. Too many pilots are accustomed to doing what the computer wants. When it fails, or a situation not programmed occurs the pilot is supposed to fly the damned plane. But the pilot is trying to get the computer working instead of working the problem with the plane. This isn't the pilot not wanting the computer to fly. This is someone who needs the computer to fly.