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.
After three years? It seems really unhealhy that borders on obsessive. Let it go, no one cares anymore.
As they are today, V, airplanes are ticking time bombs just awaiting for the next Sully Sullenberger, and anyone that flies or knows someone who does or who lives under the flightpath of an airport SHOULD care.
Instead of conforming to the 'norm' on this one, why not have a gander at the facts and THEN make up your mind. You just might find yourself caring.
I was going to rep you until I realized where you were going with this thread.
As someone who knows a bit about avionics myself - all I can react with is this:
GCSTroop gave what appeared to be a well-thought out response. You're suggesting that you know something that he doesn't. Instead of dusting him off with your beer fart, why not stay in the race and support your 'argument' with the kind of facts you're demanding of others?
Yeah. I know a bit about avionics too.
Planes are big machines that transport people from place to place.
Some planes can go faster than others.
You need a big long driveway to take off and land.
Some planes are bigger than others.
I could go on and on and on with all I know about avioncs but since it would add nothing more worthwhile to the conversation than your posts have, I think I'll just go read another thread.
Anyone that posts what you did and then adds that they could add something worthwhile but won't because it wouldn't add anything more worthwhile ain't got nuthin' worthwhile. And that especially includes avionics. Enjoy your next thread.
"No. The safest thing to do is to get the pilots out of the seat once and for all. The technology is there - to that I can speak authoritatively. The automation is fine-tuned enough, the computers are smart enough, the redundancy is reliable enough... The weakest link in the whole chain is the pilot. It'll be twenty years before we get them out of the seat (because that's about the pace of regulation) but it's there and, in my opinion, the sooner the better."
From this guy: GCSTroop, Post 90.
Human detachment from reality via "technology".
Why didn't the automated aeroplane take effective evasive measures when keen-sensing all those gooses?
Why is GCSTroop shifting the incompetency blame from the avionics to the human bean?
There's a no-brainer in here somewhere, maybe two, maybe more, if you catch my drift.
Anyone that posts what you did and then adds that they could add something worthwhile but won't because it wouldn't add anything more worthwhile ain't got nuthin' worthwhile. And that especially includes avionics. Enjoy your next thread.
Sorry. I thought it would be noticed that it was aimed at letting Harrier know how little he was contributing to an otherwise very interesting thread and that his knowledge is probably no greater than mine.
If I can be absolved and bring up a point that requires no knowledge of aircraft.
I wondered before, but more so now with this discussion, if the possibilty that he did, in fact, just 'get lucky', so to speak , but did not follow better protocol ,if it accounts for the extreme humility and reluctance to talk about the event in the days following.
His demeaner just seemed rather ....removed.
Does that suggest a possible sense of guilt on his part or would that be standard... to say nothing until after an investigation?
"No. The safest thing to do is to get the pilots out of the seat once and for all. The technology is there - to that I can speak authoritatively. The automation is fine-tuned enough, the computers are smart enough, the redundancy is reliable enough... The weakest link in the whole chain is the pilot. It'll be twenty years before we get them out of the seat (because that's about the pace of regulation) but it's there and, in my opinion, the sooner the better."
From this guy: GCSTroop, Post 90.
Human detachment from reality via "technology".
Why didn't the automated aeroplane take effective evasive measures when keen-sensing all those gooses?
Why is GCSTroop shifting the incompetency blame from the avionics to the human bean?
There's a no-brainer in here somewhere, maybe two, maybe more, if you catch my drift.
I'm sure the geese honked!
You ask "Why didn't the automated aeroplane take effective evasive measures when keen-sensing all those gooses?"
As GC said, it's the humans that won't let the technology advance. Had 1549 been linked as it should and could be, the radar that spotted and tracked the 'gooses' would have alerted 1549's bot, which would then have made the course correction, perhaps with an announcement "Sorry for the little jolt folks, but we just saved your parts from getting soaked in a filthy river. Enjoy the rest of your flight".
"Why is GCSTroop shifting the incompetency blame from the avionics to the human bean?"
Probably because when it comes to competency - especially during an aviation moment - human beings are, like you say, 'beans'.
You really do have to be in one or two "OhSpit" moments to appreciate that when pucker factor hits, everything you learned you just unlearned. It's like the old saying "When you're up to your ass in alligators, it's hard to remember that your original objective was to drain the swamp. In other words, pucker factor is the ultimate game changer. One of the reasons some pilots use acronyms (like GUMP-F: Gas-Undercarriage-Mixture-Prop-Flaps) is so instead of reading from checklists, they can keep their eyes focused where they should be focused: outside.
Sorry. I thought it would be noticed that it was aimed at letting Harrier know how little he was contributing to an otherwise very interesting thread and that his knowledge is probably no greater than mine.
If I can be absolved and bring up a point that requires no knowledge of aircraft.
I wondered before, but more so now with this discussion, if the possibilty that he did, in fact, just 'get lucky', so to speak , but did not follow better protocol ,if it accounts for the extreme humility and reluctance to talk about the event in the days following.
His demeaner just seemed rather ....removed.
Does that suggest a possible sense of guilt on his part or would that be standard... to say nothing until after an investigation?
It is my contention that Sully, to use your descriptor, did 'get lucky', and so far he's continued to stay lucky. And, at grand a pop (notice that this week he's in Chattanooga), rich.
As for the "possible sense of guilt" or reluctance to fess up, that may be attributable to the fact that my read of the statute of limitations still gives him another year before it runs out, meaning he could still go to jail. Two years for a civil action. Which leaves me wondering how many of those on board signed the no-sue waiver they had to sign to get the (up to $15,000 from USAirways and the $10,000 from the insurance company. If anyone knows a contact for any passenger, I'd like to hear from them.
You ask "Why didn't the automated aeroplane take effective evasive measures when keen-sensing all those gooses?"
As GC said, it's the humans that won't let the technology advance. Had 1549 been linked as it should and could be, the radar that spotted and tracked the 'gooses' would have alerted 1549's bot, which would then have made the course correction, perhaps with an announcement "Sorry for the little jolt folks, but we just saved your parts from getting soaked in a filthy river. Enjoy the rest of your flight".
"Why is GCSTroop shifting the incompetency blame from the avionics to the human bean?"
Probably because when it comes to competency - especially during an aviation moment - human beings are, like you say, 'beans'.
I really do think that 9-11 was the result of directed advanced avionics.
The pilots were literally removed from the aquarian controls.
"No. The safest thing to do is to get the pilots out of the seat once and for all. The technology is there - to that I can speak authoritatively. The automation is fine-tuned enough, the computers are smart enough, the redundancy is reliable enough... The weakest link in the whole chain is the pilot. It'll be twenty years before we get them out of the seat (because that's about the pace of regulation) but it's there and, in my opinion, the sooner the better."
From this guy: GCSTroop, Post 90.
Human detachment from reality via "technology".
Why didn't the automated aeroplane take effective evasive measures when keen-sensing all those gooses?
Why is GCSTroop shifting the incompetency blame from the avionics to the human bean?
There's a no-brainer in here somewhere, maybe two, maybe more, if you catch my drift.
I'm sure the geese honked!
Why am I shifting the blame? I wasn't really shifting the blame but if you're asking why I think humans are the weakest link in the whole chain it's because roughly 85-90% of all aircraft crashes are the result of human error. In fact, for those with exposure to aviation (especially commercial aviation), "Human Factors" and "Human Factors Awareness" or something of the sort is constantly recurring in every aspect of our training. My company, for example, requires that all of our training programs, large or small, start with a mini human factors awareness course, what the twelve biggest human-error related factors are in aviation, and so on and so forth.
NASA has a zero penalty reporting format for virtually all of aviation - to include mechanics and pilots. Essentially, it's a big list of all the personal confessions of screw-ups we in aviation do and it's anonymously based. This is so that rather than punish we stupid humans for our errors, they can actually investigate and unearth the root causes and dilemmas of what REALLY happened when the mechanic forgot to torque the nose landing gear tire down or the pilot forgot to set the flaps on takeoff. Having worked in aviation, when "the man" comes asking what happened, it has always been more beneficial to lie than to tell the truth. That's because of the severity with which the FAA has come down on professional airmen. So, do I think we have a decent handle on the real causes behind human factors in aviation? No. I think we're just now beginning to scratch the surface. You can browse through the plethora of confessions here.
Next, you ask why the automated airplane didn't just divert its course after sensing all the geese? To answer that question, I have to point out that you assume all aircraft are unilaterally and equally equipped with the same avionics package all readily available to do such a thing. They are not. However, the A320, which "Sully" was flying, could be considered one of the more modern aircraft flying in the skies - though certainly not the most modern. As of right now, though, the logic behind most aircraft (especially the Airbus) is to give the computer "primary flying responsibility" and to keep the flight crew minimally involved. Nevertheless, we have to distinguish that the intent of this was to still involve "boots in the cockpit" rather than "ghosts."
On a similar note, newer cars with things like magnetic ride technology, predictive transmission shifting, traction control, and so on and so forth are not much different. The computers in the car are controlling the vast majority of the ride, how it feels, and what you're interacting with. But, the auto manufacturer still leaves it up to you (for the most part) not to plow through a family of deer camped in the middle of the road. The A320 is roughly analogous to that. It can damper and fine tune a lot of things, interact digitally (the "joystick" in the cockpit is completely electrical - no cables or the like are connected to it), land by itself, and all that good stuff. But, like most manufacturers, Airbus left it up to the pilots to be able to take control if they felt the need to do so. This typically involves a certain amount of force to override the column (or joystick) and give the pilot's control.
What I meant by the technology "being there" is that we have crossed a milestone in artificial intelligence technology wherein computers utilizing things like Bayesian Reasoning and qualitative statistical analysis of most likely outcomes for predicted actions has become reality. In fact, the self-driving Google car is primarily based on such things.
So, the short answer is that the plane Sullenberger was flying was not equipped or capable of detecting a flock of geese and diverting the flight path in such a way to avoid them. Be careful, though, because that is DIFFERENT than saying the aircraft CANNOT have that capability or that the technology that exists today is inadequate.
One other thing I'd like to point out is the drone technology still utilizes pilots. Somewhere in a bunker or underground cave, there exist a pilot and a co-pilot who are "flying the aircraft" via remote link and, in front of them, lie numerous video screens so that they can watch virtually everything going on in and around the drone. However, for all intents and purposes, the aircraft is literally flying itself. But, this also has the potential to greatly increase safety.
Imagine, if you will, that the general public and the regulating agencies decide that, yeah, it's OK to have drones flying people around but they don't want it so automated that there is never any human interaction. Fair enough, maybe that's a good compromise. So, now you have row after row of computer terminals and video screens somewhere at the airport and you have pilots sitting behind the desk at each one of them. Suddenly, a pilot gets sick, has a heart attack, throws up, dies, pukes up the thirty-four tequila shots from last night - or whatever. Now, instead of there being an emergency, they just kick the old man out of the seat and a fresh, new pilot takes over. Pilot fatigue on very long international trips? Why have a backup crew sleeping on lumpy bunks or in first class where, though comfortable, it's not a night in one's own bed? Whenever time is nearing, have the backup crew come from the house (where they've arisen from a fresh night of rest) and kick the old farts who've been staring at the same screen for the last eight hours out of the seat. Now, you don't have to worry about crews with jetlag, crews with bad sleep, crews who've gotten sick, drank too much, or whatever.
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.
