> On Aug 1, 2020, at 09:09 , Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/Aug/20 17:49, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>> Aviation makes a strong effort in this area, perhaps stronger than any other
>> human endeavor, especially when you’re talking about the fraction of
>> Aviation known in the US as “Part 121 Scheduled Air Carrier Services”.
>>
>> However, as noted above, there are exceptions.
>>
>> In fact, there are striking parallels between Asiana 214 and this incident.
>>
>> The tools to avoid the accident in question automatically were available to the
>> pilots, but they failed to turn them on (autothrottle).
>>
>> The tools to avoid this incident were available to Telia, but they
>> failed to turn them on.
>
> Agreed, the leading cause of aircraft incidents is human error. When
> human errors in aeroplane accidents are repeated, it's usually because
> of poor crew resource management, poor training, low experience, poor
> situational awareness, crew fatigue, crew disorientation, not following
> checklists... that sort of thing.
Let’s be clear… This was not an incident, it was an accident.
In the US at least, under 49CFR§830.2 the two are specifically defined
as follows:
Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft
which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention
of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death
or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. For purposes of
this part, the definition of “aircraft accident” includes “unmanned aircraft accident,”
as defined herein.
Serious injury is defined in my previous message (reference to the same code section)
Substantial damage is defined as “damage or failure which adversely affects the
structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft and which
would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited
to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holses
in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blade, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps,
engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.
An “Incident” is an occurrence other than an accident, associated with the operation of an aircraft,
which affects or could affect the safety of operations.
> We've made a whole hymn out of "do proper filtering at eBGP hand-off
> points" over the years. Network operators are not always working under
> pressure like airline pilots do. On a quiet, calm afternoon, an engineer
> can comb the network to make sure all potential mistakes that have been
> shouted about for years within our community are plugged, especially
> when working at an "experienced" operation such as Telia and similar.
Airline pilots are not always under pressure, either. In fact, airline flying is
90% boredom, 9+% routine operations (procedures for preparation and
departure, departure and climb-out, preparations for approach and landing,
descent, approach, and landing) and <1% actual pressure (IROPS,
in-flight emergencies, etc.).
I say this not only as someone who’s spent a lot of time as a passenger,
but also as a commercial instrument-rated pilot.
> It's almost a "do once and forget, and watch it repeat" type-thing, vs.
> airline pilots who need to be on it 110%, every second of every flight,
> even if they've got 25,000hrs under their epaulettes.
ROFLMAO, if you truly believe this, you have no concept of life in the
cockpit.
Yes, airline pilots need to be paying attention even in the most routine
phases of flight, but in reality, 90+% of every flight is routine monitoring
of systems, essentially checking the “Ts”…
Time: Is the flight progressing as expected
Are we where we expected to be at this time?
Is the fuel consumption in line with our expectations?
Turn: Are we on course?
How far to the next heading change?
Throttle: Is our performance correct for this point in the flight?
Are we at the desired altitude, attitude, power, and airspeed?
If applicable, are the auto throttles in the correct mode?
Twist: Are any adjustments or preparations on Radios/Navigation/FMS needed?
This is where you check to make sure that not only are you on the correct
frequency now (com, navigation, etc.), but that you also have things set
for the next change.
It’s also where you make those changes (e.g. flip to the next VOR) if that’s
due.
Track: How does our track compare to our intended course.
This is where the heading is adjusted, if necessary, to achieve the desired course.
With modern automation in the cockpit, this is mostly a glance at the indicators
to see that the autopilot is still engaged in the correct mode and holding the
desired course.
Talk: Interaction with ATC
Any compulsory reports due? Are we in compliance with our clearance, etc.
Now, in a classic single-engine aircraft, these 6 Ts are a constant effort
for the pilot. In a modern airliner, once it’s at cruise, it’s:
Time: 99% automated, check the gas gauges and ground vs. airspeed to
make sure they match expectations.
Turn: 99+% automated, you programmed your route into the FMS and George
has it from there. (All autopilots are named George[1]).
Throttle: 99+% automated. Are the auto throttles active in the correct mode?
Twist: 99+% automated. Other than the occasional frequency handoff, the
radios are 99% managed by the FMS… Thanks, George!
Track: 99+% automated. Is the automation doing something untoward?
Talk: Workload here, but only if ATC calls you for the most part. Generally
about 5 seconds every 30-90 minutes in cruise flight.
This is not to take away from the skill, training, or capabilities of those who have
put in the effort and have what it takes to attain not only an ATP (Airline Transport
Pilot) certificate, but also get on and keep a pilot job at an airline. It’s definitely no
minor feat to accomplish all of that and as a general rule, they are hard-working
highly skilled highly trained professionals. However, 99% of piloting is best
summed up as “Pilots use their superior training and planning abilities and
their superior judgment to avoid situations in which their superior skills are
required.”
I have tremendous respect for pilots. I am a pilot. But hyperbole such
as what you present above is merely common misconception.
Owen
[1] Why is the autopilot called “George?” — There’s no definite answer, but the
two most common theories are:
+ The first practical autopilot was invented by George DeBeeson (This is fact, but whether
or not the colloquial name for autopilots is because of this isn’t certain)
+ RAF pilots named their aircraft in general “George” after King George, the owner
of all RAF aircraft. (started in WWII under King George VI)
https://airplaneacademy.com/why-is-the-autopilot-called-george-two-prevailing-theories/