Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have been reading with interest this ongoing debate and IMHO, Bruff seems to be scoring some points that may be very valid. As a frequent flier and former flight attendant, I shudder to think that an error in the front office would ever leave me swimming for my life. I would be even more concerned if the pilot(s) were distracted, as Bruff repeatedly proclaims. Quite frankly, I hope that his wish does get his butt sued, because that will settle this issue once and for all in a court setting. It would be helpful if those contrary to Bruff would, instead of their continued ad hominiums, stick to facts.
A machine is not the unfallible wonder that you and Bruff would like to think it is. Aircraft systems are already largely automated, but the combination of technology and human pilots complement each other. Aircraft operate more efficiently and arguable more safely then when it was purely Charles and Amelia (eyphenisms for man and woman) at the controls.
The human element will never be safely removed from the equation. What happens when the "bot" fails and no pilot is there to save the aircraft? Answer: you and your frequent fliers end up disentegrated over several miles of land or water - and it is also bye-bye airplane.
Bruff has not been working in the realm of fact - and his ideas are dangerous.
That is why he is rightly mocked - in the interest of the continued safe passage of the flying public.
..Aircraft systems are already largely automated, but the combination of technology and human pilots complement each other. Aircraft operate more efficiently and arguable more safely then when it was purely Charles and Amelia (eyphenisms for man and woman) at the controls.
The human element will never be safely removed from the equation.
Bruff has not been working in the realm of fact - and his ideas are dangerous.
That is why he is rightly mocked - in the interest of the continued safe passage of the flying public.
Bruff here. I'm not going to speak for Jameson, but since I'm mentioned, this contribution.
"A machine is not the unfallible wonder that you and Bruff would like to think it is".
Bruff does not think that a machine is unfallible...unfallible...unfalliable. (Def. "unfallible". Not 'fallable'. Applied to aircraft, not capable of falling out of the sky). I'm making the claim that a machine (i.e. aircraft), properly maintained and programmed, is a lot safer than humans (for the reasons previously names). Applied to aircraft, there's the famous Air France scenario Air France Flight 296 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
in which an A320 refused to cooperate and mushed into trees at the end of the runway. The airplane was only doing what it was programmed to do. It was, of course, immediately reprogrammed, but it does indicate that a machine is only as good as the programmer standing behind it - on the ground. Needless to say, like AF 296 proved, there is a learning curve.
"What happens when the "bot" fails and no pilot is there to save the aircraft? Answer: you and your frequent fliers end up disentegrated over several miles of land or water - and it is also bye-bye airplane."
When the bot fails and there's no pilot, the bot would have a backup: another bot. Of course, there's no reason that the aircraft couldn't revert to the same control as those drones over Afghanistan - which are flown from Langley. A320 BotPlane got a problem over Istanbul? No problem: call Langley ask for extension A320.
"Bruff has not been working in the realm of fact - and his ideas are dangerous."
I presented an extensive list of irrefutable facts. What in particular, were not (fact)? Support your answer with more than rhetoric. You're right about "ideas being dangerous". Start with the idea that Sullenberger was a hero or didn't choke. Here's another: the bastard should be in jail!
Still, if anyone is interested in learning more about how he was able to safely land his aircraft I recommend the detailed account in Atul Gawande's The Checklist Manifesto.
Still, if anyone is interested in learning more about how he was able to safely land his aircraft I recommend the detailed account in Atul Gawande's The Checklist Manifesto.
How do you figure that Sully "safely landed his aircraft"? Safely landing an aircraft, in my books, means not only delivering the airplane safely to its destination, but delivering those aboard safely and dry-ly. Preferably on or close to the scheduled arrival.
As for that book, instead of laying out 15 bucks for a read that has very little about this incident - and what there is, is public access through the NTSB and Vanity Fair, why not just read the NTSB report? http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/reports/2010/aar1003.pdf Except for fudging a few facts, like crediting Sully with having called in a MayDay or glossing over the fact that he could have made it back to LGA, it's pretty accurate.
I presented an extensive list of irrefutable facts. What in particular, were not (fact)? Support your answer with more than rhetoric. You're right about "ideas being dangerous". Start with the idea that Sullenberger was a hero or didn't choke. Here's another: the bastard should be in jail!
For what?
You accuse me of engaging in rhetoric?
Bruff, dude - the man landed the airplane on the river and no one on board died.
Still, if anyone is interested in learning more about how he was able to safely land his aircraft I recommend the detailed account in Atul Gawande's The Checklist Manifesto.
Jack and i don't agree on much, but you, my future legal colleague, get a rep point.
Bruff, dude - the man landed the airplane on the river and no one on board died.
Why do you hate the man so much?
Jump Jet (Harrier), this was supposed to be a debate, not a barkoff. Your side was entirely rhetoric, and when you run out of heat, you run off. Still, I'm going to give you give you a B- for at least having a semblance of what went down. But, like most, you refuse to be confused with the facts, and because a little learning is a dangerous thing, I'm downgrading your to D-.
As for asking why I 'hate' the man. I don't 'hate' him. The man is living comfortably off avails from nearly killing 154 people. And because he won't fess up, I just don't care for the man and, quite frankly, want to see him prosecuted.
As for the fact that 'no one died' somehow making everything right, Dude, that's the main rub. It's also the typical response. In stuff like this, the end does not justify the means. Had even one soul perished - and I'm happy that that was not the case(!) - the aviation world would be different: Sully WOULD be in jail and all pilots would be required to have seaplane ratings; all aircraft would have life rafts and vests under their seats; cameras would be in all cockpits; bird radar avoidance would be tied to intersecting flight paths; but the biggie would be the move to remove pilots from commercial aircraft so bot pilots could create their own miracles thousands of times a day: landing safe and sound. At the right destination.
A machine is merely the sum total of who built it and who programmed it. Unlike the human, the machine doesn't sleep, forget, go on strike, mutter incoherently as it wanders up and down the isles or shout Ali Akbar and dive the plane into the drink or allow themselves to be hijacked and flown into major buildings or farm fields.
Modern jet aircraft, for example, are composed of tens of thousands of individual parts, all knit together in close harmony that allows us to fly in the utmost of comfort and cross oceans and arctic wastes in mere hours with complete safety. But as Bruff stated – and don't take his word for it - it is rare that the bird itself is at fault, the human element being behind the vast majority of incidents. In your world, you argue that adding the human element makes for more efficiency and “arguable more safely” (sic), yet you don't back it up nor, it would appear, can you. Humans get overwhelmed easily.
Commercial flying is one of the most boring jobs on the face of the earth. Most ATP's go through their entire careers with nary so much as flinching, let alone having to deal with a real emergency. That's probably why Sully was so unprepared when his 15 minutes of fame began that eventful day in 2009.
That's also why, in my FA days, we used to joke about the two “Maytag repairmen” in the front office collecting high salaries while all we did was collect the empty soda tins and abuse.
If Bruff is not working the realm of fact, rather than claim that his ideas – which, from what I see, were all gleaned from the NTSB and other reports – are dangerous, why not man-up and 'call' him. But use facts.
For instance, was it 'fact' that Sully was watching the river? Appears from the transcript to be the case. Did Sully forget his call sign? Did he land down wind? Did he tell ATC that he was heading back to LGA, then not do it? Did he task Skyles with stupid stuff that completely eliminated him from the equation? Did he allow the plane to splash at only partial flaps? Why didn't he call 911? Why was he last off the plane? Where was he during the critical comments on the water?
For me, lots of questions that even Bruff hasn't addressed.
What I do know, however, is that we were in a glider and the Big Boys up front had a full seven minutes, I would at least expect them to tell me a) what to expect, b) when to expect, and c) what might he a good idea to occupy. I also know that if I learned that the Big Boy who caused the whole thing were earning big bucks because he endangered my life, I would be going after him (and his employer) for three things: first, an apology; second a fess job, and three, something to have made him scare the bejezus out of me worth while.
A machine is merely the sum total of who built it and who programmed it. Unlike the human, the machine doesn't sleep, forget, go on strike, mutter incoherently as it wanders up and down the isles or shout Ali Akbar and dive the plane into the drink or allow themselves to be hijacked and flown into major buildings or farm fields.
Modern jet aircraft, for example, are composed of tens of thousands of individual parts, all knit together in close harmony that allows us to fly in the utmost of comfort and cross oceans and arctic wastes in mere hours with complete safety. But as Bruff stated – and don't take his word for it - it is rare that the bird itself is at fault, the human element being behind the vast majority of incidents. In your world, you argue that adding the human element makes for more efficiency and “arguable more safely” (sic), yet you don't back it up nor, it would appear, can you. Humans get overwhelmed easily.
Commercial flying is one of the most boring jobs on the face of the earth. Most ATP's go through their entire careers with nary so much as flinching, let alone having to deal with a real emergency. That's probably why Sully was so unprepared when his 15 minutes of fame began that eventful day in 2009.
That's also why, in my FA days, we used to joke about the two “Maytag repairmen” in the front office collecting high salaries while all we did was collect the empty soda tins and abuse.
If Bruff is not working the realm of fact, rather than claim that his ideas – which, from what I see, were all gleaned from the NTSB and other reports – are dangerous, why not man-up and 'call' him. But use facts.
For instance, was it 'fact' that Sully was watching the river? Appears from the transcript to be the case. Did Sully forget his call sign? Did he land down wind? Did he tell ATC that he was heading back to LGA, then not do it? Did he task Skyles with stupid stuff that completely eliminated him from the equation? Did he allow the plane to splash at only partial flaps? Why didn't he call 911? Why was he last off the plane? Where was he during the critical comments on the water?
For me, lots of questions that even Bruff hasn't addressed.
What I do know, however, is that we were in a glider and the Big Boys up front had a full seven minutes, I would at least expect them to tell me a) what to expect, b) when to expect, and c) what might he a good idea to occupy. I also know that if I learned that the Big Boy who caused the whole thing were earning big bucks because he endangered my life, I would be going after him (and his employer) for three things: first, an apology; second a fess job, and three, something to have made him scare the bejezus out of me worth while.
Jameson:
Thanks for the only positive contribution this thread has revealed. Nice to have it from the point of view of someone who, day-in day-out, places her life in the hands of people who get to play God.
On the subject of them making it worth your while, given our litigiousness, I'm surprised that not a one of those on board found a sharpie lawyer and sued the men in blue and the airline - that is, until I learned that the day afterwards, the airline handed everyone $5,000 plus up to $5,000 for lost items and a thank you, and the insurance company gave them $10,000 if they promised not to sue. It would be nice to see Sully on the hot seat. To which I would add the FAA for not requiring that all pilots have seaplane ratings. Given that 70% of the earths surface is covered in water, they're sure missing the boat on that one.
Again, thanks for adding some reality to the issue.
Bruff
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
