I have been working on another post, but have received a lot of questions concerning the mainstream media's latest brainiac hysteria piece on pilots and automation. I'll do a quick and dirty post on this... Written in a hotel room three hours before crew van time.
Airmanship encompasses the whole of being a pilot. There are good and bad examples everywhere. Thankfully, in the air carrier business, it is mostly good. It has to be for the safety of the flying public. Flight deck automation has been coming on at a steady pace since the first rudimentary auto-pilots. It has increased safety by ten fold in this country... Not sure about other places, nor do I want to get into the politics of it.
In my opinion, flightdeck automation, and I use that term loosely, is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Is it easier to fly an A320 than a 737-100? No, it's not. Not for my generation, anyway. The old steamers were easy to fly and after a few thousand hours, the flight controls became part of you... Like walking. You did not think about how the aileron moved, it just did... Brain, muscle, cable, flight control. We had old Captains back in those days who could fly without the auto-pilot (not unusual for the early auto-pilots to be inop) drink coffee, flirt with flight attendants, and keep altitude within 50 feet at all times. Usually, though, when the auto-pilot was broken, the co-pilot had to fly all the legs while the Captain drank coffee and flirted with flight attendants.
And then, along came Airbus Industries and the air carrier world has never been the same. The Electric jet is not an easy aircraft to learn... Uh, let me restate that. It is not an easy aircraft to learn well. I can teach a private pilot to fly it with about 20 hours of dual, but if anything goes wrong... Good-bye. There have been accidents with Fi-Fi that happened because the crews did not understand the systems and reacted incorrectly. The lay people who look at these accidents do not understand the systems either and so generate false story lines. And this is after they have interviewed an "expert" who does not understand the systems. I bring to your attention the twenty year old infamous mainstream media hit piece on Airbus Industries that had a leading (at that time) anchorette, with her best serious look ask "Why will this airplane go rogue and not obey pilot commands?"
Here is where it gets touchy... Is airline training being dumbed down to save money or because good quality pilots are not being hired? I'll keep that opinion to myself... Thank you. I do know this, though: The interview process is a game that you had better be prepared for or you will not succeed, no matter your airmanship qualities. It's too bad, but that's the way it is. A perfectly good pilot will be turned away because they answered a trick interview question incorrectly. But a weak pilot who has prepared for the interview will succeed.
Let me define a weak pilot: A weak pilot is a pilot who cannot keep up with the rigors of flying the Line. This is industrial strength flying, day in and day out. Schedules are tight and demanding. Aircraft must be flown in all weather, day and night, month after month. Your flying must be aggressive; when ATC tells you to cross 40 west of a certain arrival fix at 25,000 feet, you should be able to mentally calculate the descent point within 3 seconds, tired or not. Don't start pushing buttons to see where Fi-Fi nav thinks the d/p should be... When ATC tells you to slow down 50 knots, that means now... Thrust back; tweak the spoilers... Basic airmanship skills that have to be ingrained in your pilot soul. Your body takes a beating from lack of sleep, too much coffee, and poor dietary practices. Can you keep up? If not, you are a weak pilot.
Could a weak pilot, with or without automation, have saved the Hudson River airframe, crew, and pax. Not hardly! Those folks are alive because Captain Sully had the airmanship skills to save them... My aircraft. Excuse me while I wipe my eyes...
Modern flight decks are a collection of systems working together to deliver pax safely to their destination thousands of miles away for pennies p/mile. They are not automated as the media wants the layperson to believe. The pilots still run the show, just in a different way than days of yonder. What happens when one of those systems quits working? The back-up system comes on line and is used. There are five (5) levels of flight management in Fi-Fi and you must understand each one of them thoroughly or you, as a pilot, are being irresponsible to your pax.
I don't understand this caterwauling about pilots not being able to fly the aircraft in the Piper Cub mode. I don't know any good pilots who have trouble with that... If they are one of the few weak pilots, they can't manage the systems well or fly stick and rudder. I stick and rudder it every chance I get. It handles very well... No surprises in any flight regime that I have seen. But, the Company wants its $60,000,000 aircraft used to their limits and to do that requires understanding the systems and using them to their limits. And that brings up AF447...Nothing ticks me off quicker than hearing talking heads berate the AF447 crew. When the final report comes out in 2012, it will probably paint a picture of a perfect digital storm... What else could cause the captain to say this can't be happening. Something very strange was going on... Obviously, they were getting conflicting information. I can't wait to read the final report.
OK, that's it for now... The Electric Jet is a beautiful flying machine, either in stick and rudder mode, or Star Trek mode. The so called downside of "automation" is claptrap. The air carrier business is totally safe.
I've got to get ready for work... A transcon westbound. Sorry for the sloppy writing.
60 comments:
A thought-provoking post. Certainly at my airline (big European low cost A320 operator) it's not uncommon for the autopilot to be in at 400 feet and only out again at decision altitude.
I take great pride in being able to nail an ILS or non-precision approach to minimums regardless of the level of automation available, but the A320, in particular, is an aircraft that encourages pilots to ask "why is it doing this?" when a much more appropriate action is to promptly take the autopilot out and correct the situation.
When the proverbial hits the fan and the autopilot and autothrust say goodbye, I want flying the aircraft to feel completely natural and instinctive, leaving me capacity to actually deal with the problem. I do feel that I'm in a minority here - disconnecting the autothrust last week solicited the comment "that's brave" from the Captain. A telling fact is that the UK's flag carrier does not allow manual flight without autothrust in the A320.
Equally, it's about balancing personal desires with the situation. Deciding to hand-fly into the London TMA at peak time is, IMHO, an idiotic thing to do. Disconnecting the autopilot to use full speedbrake is for some a useful trick; I ask myself how I got into this situation and find an alternative solution.
One of the training Captains I flew with at the very beginning of my career said something that pops up in my mind on every flight: "Anyone can be a pilot, but it's a big step to become a professional pilot". I think there's a lot of truth in that.
Having said all that, the different philosophies between the EU and the USA come into play here. Most pilots start on their first "heavy" type with around 250 hours if selected through a cadet scheme, and are heavily mentored through their training.
I had 170 hours total time when I flew my first passenger flight on the A320. 1200 hours later I still feel brand new in so many ways.
I'll happily fly in a Boeing, an Airbus or even something entirely different. Your industry does a great job in getting people from ground to air to ground safely. And none of it is nearly as easy as many people would like to believe. Thanks for adding the context that the hysterical headlines and talking heads lack.
Dave- good comment. Absolutely correct about the "why is it doing this?" Or, "have you ever seen it do that before?"
Justin Schmid- thanks and you are welcome...
OK, if I don't get off this laptop right now, I am going to be late for the crew van...
Sorry. Everything you've said reinforces my prejudices (disclaimer -- Daddy worked in Seattle) that given a choice, I will ALWAYS choose to fly (as a passenger -- my piloting skills consist of sucking at MS Flight Simulator) I say again ALWAYS choose to fly in a Boeing aircraft.
Great post, but where's the media article that got you started? I just want to see what they said.
All I can say about that is "Well said, from an expert"..whick
I dream of being a pilot. I have been listening to "airline pilot guy" podcast on iTunes. He has participated in accident investigations and now flys for an airline. He goes in-depth on incidents and accidents that have occurred in the last couple of years. He just in the last month has gone into great detail on flight 447 and how he believes that there is not enough time spent hand flying the aircraft.
Captain Dave I read an interesting comment the other day.
Something along the lines of "what is the difference between Boeing and Airbus"
Boeing makes airplanes that pilots fly.
Airbus make airplanes that fly the pilots.
Any thoughts?
Ironically, the greatest advances in automation and fancy avionics are not found in the airline cockpit, but in the GA world. Witness the latest series of touch-screen Garmin boxes where you can rubber-band your route right on the screen like you would on an iPhone or iPad. You can program your route on a handheld device and then beam it to the aircraft's avionics.
Unlike the pro pilot world, with GA you'll find pilots who don't fly terribly often (at least, not by pro pilot standards), and when they DO fly, it's single-pilot. The effect of all that glass and automation on pilots who already have trouble maintaining proficiency due to the economy and high cost of flying can, in my experience, be pretty dramatic -- especially when it fails.
As far as the Airbus is concerned, I've got a video of a high-time Airbus pilot flying a Gulfstream which always makes me laugh because he has a tough time with it, and you can hear him commenting about how he hasn't trimmed an airplane in more than 10 years. I'm not saying that the Airbus is bad, just that it sure is different!
Hi Dave,
I've been reading your blog for some time now and I can say that it is really my favourite blog. This post was of particular interest for me, as I'm going to start my A320 Typerating course next Monday (which will hopefully help me in getting my first job in an airline...). I would like to ask you if the often heard prejudice (at least here in Europe...) that the Airbus Typerating is rather focussing on the normal operation of the aircraft than on the systems in detail when compared to a Boeing Typerating. Well, I don't have an comparison as it is my first typerating, but it would be nice to know anyway.
Kirk- Boeing makes a good product, no doubt. So does Airbus...
Aprenta- it was all over the American media last week. It's old news today...
John C.- Well, I don't think AF447 had anything to do with hand flying proficiency. They were getting conflicting information of a large magnitude.
Christopher- yes, that sounds like something a Boeing representative would say. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I said, the Airbus is an exotic machine and flys very well in all flight regimes.
Ron- OK, but the Gulfstream and the Electric Jet are two different animals. Put the Gulfstream pilot in the Electric Jet and I am sure we could find something to laugh about...
Flo- well, now you are talking specific airline training operations. Each airline must have their training program approved by the governing agency. When I went through Airbus training, the course was very rigorous with a scary washout rate. Now, the training is New Age kinder and gentler, supposedly better. That's not my area of expertise, so I will defer to the experts. The intent of this post is to defend Fi-Fi... She is a fine flying machine.
Captain Dave,
Long time reader, first time commenter (I think).
Unpolished writing this time, perhaps, but some brilliant insights.
Your description of what it takes to be a strong pilot reveals much wisdom. The ability to triumph over the wear and tear of the day to day is what it takes -- in many other fields of endeavor as well.
Sunny skies, sir.
I appreaciate your input as I also saw the article. Though I fly RARELY, it is the captain that I always thank gratefully for a safe flight and landing. I believe that computers are wonderful machines but one that must never blindly be trusted. In my job, I always find ways to double-check data because there can always be variables. If I were a pilot, I imagine I would do the same.
When something goes wrong on a flight, decisions are split second and without the time to consult manuals or google symptoms, split decisions can sometimes be wrong. But you know that pilot was trying his best. His life is on the line too.
Good post Dave, I'm formulating my own thoughts on this as I fly another highly automated jet (E170/190 series) and have seen the effects of over-reliance on automation a time or two. I thought the article was fairly decent for something written by and for laymen, but like you would say the problem isn't exactly the lack of handflying...it's our relationship with the automation and the way that modern systems sometimes end up insulating pilots too effectively from what's really going on. Anyways, enjoyed your post, as always.
This comment isn't necessarily to defend the news media, but rather to shed some light on what happens "behind the camera/printing press/microphone."
First some disclaimers and background. My "piloting" is limited to around 4000 hours of MS Flight Simulator and my flying to hundreds of thousands of miles with my face pressed to a window in back. I have worked for a newspaper and a TV station. I currently work with media companies installing mission critical software.
All that said the issue with their admittedly superficial and often one-sided reporting is simply they don't have the money to employ true experts, they don't have the time to find true experts, and studies have shown that their audience wants only the highlights. It is a constant struggle.
When I was at the station even in the best scenario we got word of a news event after the morning show. That means about 8 hours of time to get the story ready for the 6pm newscast. That sounds like a lot, but you have to remember a few things. First in order to build a 60-second video story we shot 30-60 minutes of video. It takes around 30 minutes to edit a GOOD video and if you need a SOT (Sound On Tape) you also have to record the reporter's voice and perform a much more difficult edit that adds at least another 45 minutes. You have to find the people to interview, drive to them, and setup your equipment which adds a good bit of time and heaven forbid if you have to deal with a back and forth between two interviewees! You have to script the story AND everything said on the tape for the closed caption system as well as any on-air intro/extro, get graphics submitted (and usually resubmitted, reviewed, edited, and done again). In the end 8 hours is usually not enough time to get even a 1-2minute piece on the air for an average crew (reporter and camera operator).
Leaving time aside there is the money. Most media outlets just don't have the money to employ people with the expertise required. You (as a reporter) are forced to be a jack of all trades and you have to rely on people that know more (or you think know more) than you do. If they work at a university or used to do some work in the field that your story touches on they add more credential to your story. Some stations are lucky in that a reporter studied a particular subject in school and they become a defacto expert by that virtue alone. I was my station's expert for nuclear physics because of a thesis paper on risk communication around nuclear accidents for goodness sake!!
The final and saddest part is that studies continually show consumers of news reports don't want to deal with details. They want it presented quickly and easily. Most daily newspapers are written to the 6th grade reading level! Numerous studies of TV viewing show average viewers tune out a story after about 90-seconds unless there is compelling content. This forces reporters to gloss over things that should be covered in depth and many reporters want to cover in depth. My station was unique in that reporters could continue their stories online where they often would dig into a story more. Unfortunately online readership was so low the site was pulled.
In the end media is a business and they are fighting for their lives. An average SMALL TV station has an electrical bill that tops 6 digits a month. A camera today is considered cheap if it costs $150,000. It's much like an airline. The company expects the equipment to be used to the max to generate income and that means we get the media reports we have.
A final thought in regards to the Boeing/Airbus silliness. Now that the 787 is a (finally) certified electric jet I wonder how the debate between the fan camps will change. Boeing is moving towards the direction Airbus took years ago.
"In the aircraft business, as in a Trollope novel, things are often not what they seem."
This is the first line in the first chapter from a book I have on order - Boeing Versus Airbus: The Inside Story of the Greatest International Competition in Business (John Newhouse 2007)
Wow! What a promising subtitle! I'm wondering how in the world did Airbus, with a piddling 15% market share in the 1990s, challenge Boeing who had the lion's share of 62%, and acquired McDonald Douglas' 23% in 1997. 15% looking at 85% ... Gotta be an epic tale in there somewhere.
I don't have a horse in this race, but I do know that a quick look at current aircraft orders (updated public information available by googling ____ market share) has Boeing with 370 net orders as of 24 August 2011 and Airbus at 785 in net orders currently working. My interest, as an aviation educator, is in market trends. I wonder what type of equipment the next generation of commercial pilot may hope to fly. For business reasons it's sure looking like they're going to be adjusting their seat in an Airbus product. I can't wait to get the book!
As a passenger boarding which ever of these magnificent tributes to mankind's passion and ingenuity all I'm really worried about is mustard stains on the pilots.
Happy flying Captain!
~DeAnn
The Architect- thanks for being gentle on me... I appreciate it.
KimberlyDi- correcto!
Sam- thanks and I think we are on the same page, or close to it. The thing I see a lot is reliance on flight management computers to correct a situation that has developed, or is developing. I do not agree with that; the pilot should correct it, then give it back to the auto-pilot.
DeAnn- thanks... The out of whack orders have huge political pressures and financial incentatives behind them as well.
I feel safer on a plane then I do in my car. The person flying the plane is trained and that training continues all the time. The automation is only there to assist the pilot who in the end still flies the plane. Any one is aloud to drive a car even if they can drive or not. May we need more automation in cars.
Thank you, Captain Dave for another informative post.
Whenever the discussion of automation in aviation comes up as it seems to every year, I cannot help but think of the B-17 pilots over Europe in the 8th AF. Hand flying a max TOGW airplane full of bombs seven hours, often in IFR, wings overlapping in formation, propwash, beat up war weary airplanes. Not to take anything away from a minimus approach into an approaching cold front, but when I think of those guys I shrink in awe of their courage and skill. Auto pilot, we don't need no stiinking auto pilot.
Well said, as usual, Captain Dave - however your post really confirms the concern regarding automation. You and some of the old guard hyave maintained your skills and use the automation as a tool. I believe that the 'target' of those concerned are those pilots who use the automation as a crutch. I would posit that the best course when faced with a "What's it doing that for?" or "What does that mean?" scenario is to assess quickly and be prepared take over and use stick and rudder to gain control first and sort out the details second. *YOU* may do the calcs mentally along side Fi-Fi but how many of your cohorts just push the buttons. I really believe the criticism isn't against the aircraft nor the automation but rather those 'weak' pilots who rely on that automation to completely handle the situation without having the ability to run a mental checklist against what's happening.
I have a lot of hours in many different a/c but nothing as large as your rides but the first thing I learned in critical situations was to fly the aircraft first and sort out the why's second. From what I've read in your blog, you do that as second nature.
An old-dog 747 pilot relative of mine told me he had the A-B-C approach to life on the flight deck when things went sideways:
A = Aviate.
B = Breathe.
C = Concentrate.
The properly trained pilot who follows the above three letters - especially the "A" part - will generally be able to work their way out of a jam.
In the AP article in question, much was made of the failure of the ComAir pilots on approach to KBUF to properly read the situation, and I believe that to be a failure of both "A" and "C".
Flying is one of the safest means of transport, but the persons most directly responsible for that safety have to be, like our Captain Dave, exquisitely trained in the basic ability to control their aircraft, and also in what to do when things get Alpha Foxtrot Uniform.
Without that training, those individuals are pretty much highly paid amusement park ride operators, and we as passengers unfortunately end up taking the ride along with them.
Hello Captain! This is my first comment here, also the first time I see this wonderful book of knowledge and life experience.
As a fellow pilot (not in the airlines though) form Argentina, I wholeheartedly agree that automation came to make air transport much more safe.
And although I had a chance of using a Century IV in a Navajo for some time, most of my flights have been in little Pipers commuting stuff. And while it's nice to have the handling spot on after hours of expertise, it gets pretty awufully tiring after the 4th leg of the day. But these aircrafts are simple enough for us the dumb pilots.
Regarding AF447, or any accident of sort, people have always liked to come up with their own approaches, which certainly don't help our little sky community. In a previous post of yours, you told us about a very "nice" sail on a Diesel 9 through a storm. Most people don't take in consideration such inconvenients during a flight, and tend to picture the scenario in a complete normal environment.
Thanks Captain Dave for sharing your day to day in the flight deck, a place where all our dreams take place.
Cheers
Santiago de Larminat
Capt. Dave,
Thanks for clarifying for me some doubts I've had about the "Electric Jet." I guess I'm as guilty as many who listen to the "experts" pontificate about aviation incidents/accidents. I remember the first time I heard about fly-by-wire aircraft thinking "This will never work, long term." Boy, was I wrong. Enjoyed your comment on old captains and autopilots as well. We had major problems with the first generation autopilot gyros on the P3A. Pilots did not like flying the bird with the a/p inop. I will add though we relied heavily on the a/p especially at night when we were down low over the ocean. We had a mode called altitude hold and if I remember correctly it was coupled with the radar altimeter. We flew down to 200 ft at night, lower during the day, weather permitting.`Still our flight engineer never took his hands off the throttles down that low. Progress in avionics since those days is mind boggleing to me. Glad your enjoying the benifits. Thanks for taking time from your busy day to keep us fans informed.
It's not just in airline flying. I gave an Instrument Proficiency Check to an experienced pilot, who could fly an great approach using the autopilot in his TAA (Technically Advanced Airplane). But when I made him do it manually, he was confused by the missed approach procedure, he couldn't just punch "SUSP".
It wasn't that he didn't know how, it was just that when all the automation was taken away his flying skills were very rusty.
I note (and applaud) that you often fly manually, but other companies have in their SOP's some policies that prohibit that - they are the ones that are in line for an awakening down the road. Captain Sully was/is a glider pilot (as am I, sometimes). In my experience tail-wheel pilots and glider pilots have some of the most-honed basic flying skills I see, and Captain Sully, while just "doing his job" used those basic stick & rudder skills to their utmost. *Applause*.
I have no knowledge of flying, but the discussion seems to be an old one across many trades, we had it in shipping with various improvements as closed versus open bridge, wrong use of radar etc.
The bottom line is that you have to know your equipment, what it does and especially what it does not do. And even when you do that, you have to be on your toes, which leads me to Captain Dave's very good point about "industrial strength flying".
Again - I don't know about flying, but as a seaman to do a good job is to do it day out and day in, come hell or high water, which is rather misleading as fog is what seamen fear the most...
I have no shares in Airbus or Boeing, but should one of them be inferior to the other, then there should be numbers to show for that.
Last but not least, looking forward to the good Captain's blog about the final report about AF447 when it is out.
Ulf Larsen- exactly right... There are a lot of similarities.
D.B.- yeah, our airline is easing up on the restriction of flying manually. I think they saw the writing on the wall. I'm rusty when I turn the magic off for a few seconds; after that it's just like flying a really big King Air. Another point: the whole ATC system around large airports is designed for aircraft that have advanced flight decks.
Larry Jones- thanks for reading... Yep, we have to keep our hands on the thrust levers from 1,000 feet down...
Santiago- thanks for taking the time to read and comment...
Sierra Spartan- thanks for reminding me about A-B-C... I had heard something like that before. The Comair crash was a major tragedy. It is hard to believe, still, that a Dash 8 Q400 could roll over on its back like that. That is a serious a/c with lots of power. Hard to believe...
vgbaron- OK, I'll agree with you on that. There might be something to training nowadays, too. It seems like there is no fear factor anymore. I went years, hell, decades, fearing sim-training. It was a paycheck event and I studied hard before groundschool started. Not so anymore... Not sure if that is good. Your assesment of the corrective action when something weird is going on is absolutely right; it is exactly what I do. I still do not think that for most line pilots, when the auto-pilot quits, it is a big deal. The 320 series a/c is docile on manual controls.
Champ19- true, but don't forget that they had a lot of accidents. They were basically very low time pilots who believed they were invincible, which is necessary to fly into a metal storm. No way would their safety record be accepted today.
Dan the Mounain Man- thanks for reading... You are right about safety. My plane is much safer than your car.
Electric Jet or not, you still have to fly the Aircraft, what it comes down to is workload capacity, knowing the depth of the systems (experience) means that in a high workload situations you are still flying the aircraft, if not by the side stick then by turning or pushing buttons, most revert to stick and rudder in high workload situations (usually landing) to react more quickly to ATC or weather commands, most issues with the Electric jet are that the aircraft is flying you and that is not the case, you are the pilot and the jet transport goes where you want it to go, used correctly cockpit automation can reduce workload, but the basics still apply, fly the aircraft be it a Boeing or an Airbus.
Just a sport pilot here...
You are completely right, flying has never been safer. The accidents may be of a different nature, but there are a whole lot less of them.
Every generation of airliner has become more automated and has a lower accident rate. FACT.
Boeing vs. Airbus: 737-300/400 series came out at virtually the same time as A320. Boeing did not match A320's safety record until 737NG, which has a lot more automation. FACT. Same generation, both fly by wire A340 and B777 have a perfect record of never killing anyone. FACT.
AF447 in my mind calls for more automation, not less. If all pitots fail: keep thrust and pitch were they were (or another reasonable pre-programmed value), wings level and use GPS/INS to keep altitude and warn the pilots. (And train them NOT to take the A/P off in this kind of emergency) Don't dump a broken airliner with false readings on an unsuspecting crew!
Capt. Dave - been meaning to post for some time to say I enjoy the blog and highly appreciate the insights into aviation that it gives.
Just one comment about the recent surge in Airbus orders. This seems to be largely driven by the fact that they have announced a more efficient version of their most popular aeroplane (The A320 NEO) - the success of which seems to have taken even Airbus by surprise.
Boeing have very recently announced a new version of the 737 so the imbalance will most likely even off soon.
Capt. Dave. Yes, the 8th AF non combat losses were 50% of the total production of airplanes. That's 6,000 some odd B-17's and almost 7,000 B-24's for starters. Some of those guys had all of 250 hr. TT when they entered the ETO. Some pilots were all of 20 years old.
Back to automation.
There is little doubt that todays airplanes are the best that have ever been. And they are getting better. Airbus has seen fit to incorporate designs in their flight control systems which address and attempt to mitigate causal factors in pilot's over controlling, stalling, overspeeding, etc. Whether this is good or bad as far as the end user is concerned is pretty difficult to judge. The accident statistics bear this out. Certainly ther are accidents where these systems could be suspect. The AA crash in 2001 in Belle Harbor NY (JFK) where pilot induced oscillations of the rudder pedal were seen to over stress the vertical stabilizer to failure is one where the design limits of the rudder control system may have contributed to the cause. Bottom line is that all operators of heavy equipment have to have their proverbial heads out of their behinds, and aviation is just much more unforgiving of mistakes of any kind.
I almost always have a huge eyeroll whenever an "aviation expert" appears in the media after any sort of mishap. Events that in the past would not merit mention in even the aviation press now become "near disasters". Engine shutdowns, flat tires, taxiing into the mud on a dark and stormy night. Ridiculous. We take for granted the miracle that is flying. The unfathomable concept of taking a 300,000 pound assembly of metal 500 mph 38,000 ft in the air again and again seems to have lost all its relativity. That humans can be taught to control such kinetic forces is mind boggling. We take it all so much for granted.
Camp19- exactly correct...
grantingram- yep, they make a good product...
baswell- I'll take issue with a couple of points you made: The reason the A340 or the 777 have not had an accident is because there is not enough of them flying, compared to the Airbus narrow body. I remind you that a 777 almost crashed in England when the auto-thrust system failed because of ice in the fuel. Also, the auto-pilot will kill you if the air-data computers are going crazy, that's why it is designed to unhook. Remember, these guys (3 Line pilots) were getting very confusing information. I'll bet most talking head experts would crash the sim if they did not what was going on... False information, as you called it, can overwhelm your senses and, apparently, in some cases, training.
flightime56- exactly correct...
Hi Dave,
Have been reading your posts for years, and I would pay some good money to be able to speak with you about your career. I am a science teacher in my 20s that is taking a hard, serious look at becoming a line pilot. It's what I've always wanted to do, and I wish I could get some good insight and counseling from a good pilot, especially one that I know is as insightful and professional as yourself. I used to talk with pilots when I could as a kid in the airports, but I never seem to find any sitting amongst us in the terminal anymore, at least not when I'm laying over for any length of time. Is it worth my time? Can I get into this great profession? I wouldn't think twice if it wasn't for all of the negative things I've heard about the profession since 9/11. Thanks so much for your time and keep writing!! Your posts are often the highlight of my day!!
I've read everything BAE has published on AF447. What has me most concerned is that in the A330 the stall warning stops sounding/chirping below 60 knots because of problems with false stall warnings on the ground. The reports indicated that AF447 was in a stall but below 60 knots forward speed, the pilot flying the aircraft tried recovering from the stall by pitching down and when it reach 60 knots forward speed the stall warning started sounding again making the pilot believe that he just put the aircraft into a stall instead of being on its wayout of the stall. As a result the pilot pulled back on the stick, the forward speed went below 60 knots and the stall warning stopped. This must have been terribly confusing to the pilots as pitching down appeared to put them into a stall (the stall warning started) and pitching up appeared to get them out of the stall (the stall warning stopped). This seems like a basic design flaw. It would be simple enough to allow the stall warning to continue to sound if the forward speed of the aircraft is not sufficient to generate lift so long as there is no weight on the wheels, or if the wheels are stowed. Regardless of the initial conditions that got AF447 into its critical situation, from what I've read it was the confusion caused by the stall warning stopping and starting under incorrect conditions that would not allow the pilots to recover from what was a recoverable situation.
baswell, you are throwing "facts" around as if they were facts. Very dangerous practice.
"Boeing vs. Airbus: 737-300/400 series came out at virtually the same time as A320."
While considering timeframe, the two are closer than A320 and 737NG, you can hardly argue that B737CL is a comparable plane in this regard.
"Boeing did not match A320's safety record until 737NG, which has a lot more automation."
Many claim this, but I have yet to see something based on an actual statistic, accounting for the factors such as number of planes flying, age, factoring out the older B737 makes (pre-A320, eg 200), and factoring out non-pilot-related accidents.
Also, I fail to see where the level of automation rises so much in between CL and NG 737s (so much as you can have them on one type rating) - unless you count displays automation (which I dont, even though I acknowledge their place in todays airliner)
"Same generation, both fly by wire A340 and B777 have a perfect record of never killing anyone."
You fail at noticing (apart from what Cpt Dave pointed out), that while T7 has FBW, it is nothing like Airbus style FBW. That said, its cockpit is far more advanced compared to a 737, classic or NG.
Very interesting comments, Dave. I appreciate your well-informed opinions and insights.
Written from Starbuck's in Hawaii!
Captain Dave
Comment from a "layman - late potential PPL" with an immense interest in aviation and bad eyesight - I taught software development back in the last century for a living. It occurred to me many (twenty plus) years ago that as flight controls become increasingly "fly by wire", that even a small digital (Boolean) system of average complexity, with multiple inputs interpreted by a set of rules is prone to, if not an infinite, then an astonishlingly large propensity to error. Not going to bore folk with the maths but people know that most software development effort consists, not of writing algorithms but of eliminating errors therefrom. You hope to catch the errors before a critical juncture is reached.
Now in the "industrial strength" piloting world add the human element to real time - a black windscreen, overwater, severe turbulence, circadian downtime, slim speed stall/shock margins at altitude and a sudden " I can't do that Dave" from the encoded procedures and bingo. I am not an airline Captain and I consequently respect the fine comments offered here by those that earn their crust in that way. When you add (combinatorially) the propensity of digital systems to error along with the actions of human beings in extremis I am not surprised that catastrophe ensues at times.
What is the solution? Well probably given the chaotic dynamics of systems there is no "solution" but bloody good handover data to the man/woman with the stick when the encoded algorithms throw up their hands is paramount, would be a good start. However the countervailing software design tendency seems to be to make life "easy". Easy for whom though the software author or the pilot? How do you bridge that gap?
In addition flight software is continually subject to ongoing revision (with consequent risk of introduction of more errors). How good are the regression tests here and how are the standards maintained over time? I know all these arguments have been rehearsed time and again and I am certain that flight control software engineers take their jobs very seriously. But human nature is not perfect and the PF and PNF need all the help the digital world can give them. Improved safety, you betcha, perfection, we're still working on that?
V
Capt. Dave, there is no indication from the investigation so far that the attitude indicators were not working. So my point was that the air data computers *shouldn't* go crazy. No (trustworthy) pitot/static is bad, but just like the pilots should at that point do, the computers could also fall back on the attitude + thrust + GPS method of keeping the aircraft inside the envelope until the pitots would have unfrozen.
Not easy at FL390, at night, in a CB, but it is the only hope and both the computers and pilots should be programmed to do it, but neither were. This is not the first failed pitot/static caused crash of an airliner, after all.
I firmly believe a computer will be much better at flying the aircraft in that condition than a human being overloaded with error messages.
Agreed that there is not enough flying time on 340s and 777 to prove their safety.
If I read the AF447 tea leaves correctly it will indeed be a perfect storm. The start of the problem, at least from the transcripts and intelligent analysis I've read on it, was the autopilot disengaging at altitude in a heavy chevy. The flight envelope at those flight levels is so narrow that hand flying takes a very steady hand let alone a hand also dealing with a bunch of conflicting information. Not saying the autopilot should not have disengaged, just simply that there was a very small, possibly impossible given that set of circumstances, margin for error.
I forget, offhand, the next order of events but that stall recovery was excessive for the altitude. AF apparently only teaches low altitude stall recovery which has very different characteristics than at 39000 feet. The software played a role insofar as providing both too much information and not enough. The captain's "this can't be happening" attests to this.
In the end it's basic airmanship that brought AF447 to its untimely demise. The irony of that is that the pilots did exactly as they were trained to so when I say basic airmanship I simply mean losing control of the situation and aircraft. Part of that is being distracted by the messages, alarms and conflicting information flooding that cockpit.
Like every accident it was a chain of events, some going back years, where if you changed any one event the outcome would be different. I recall being taught in primary training "rule number one, fly the aircraft". Glad that you and others still do that because I know how quickly basic skills rust.
By the way, I'm basing my info on the BEA preliminary report including the transcripts.
When I book an overseas flight, I am always delighted if I see that it is an Airbus. You just don't have the chance to watch so many movies, of your choice, at your seat, and pause them when you get up to use the bathroom, if you are on a Boeing.
Even better if a captain like you is flying it!
Noella- I think you are merging with your new iPad... Yes?
Julie- well, thanks for the compliment...
baswell- I have only seen a few leaks and some preliminary data, but I have heard that all three air data computers were giving incorrect data. That will make the auto-pilot disconnect.
I think I read that the two co-pilots were trying to determine if the stand-by attitude indicator was correct versus the PFDs.
The point is: The overloading of the pilots with error messages is coming from the computer that you think can do a better job of flying in this situation. Not true... Maybe someday, though.
diabear- OK, I have only read preliminary stuff, but it appears to me they were trying to fly the aircraft first, as you say... They were confused from the data. I have also heard that there was a glitch in the software that caused the stall warning to sound as they tried lowering the nose to regain speed.
It's easy to be an armchair quarterback, but not so easy when your heart is in your throat wondering what the hell is going on... Why isn't this working?
buach- OK, I agree wih most of that. The software isn't perfect, nut it almost is... Everyday, thousands of flights around the world in Airbus Industries arrive safely.
Jeremy- email me with that question...
GuyCocoa- yep, I have heard that to about the stall warning... That and many other incorrect messages they were receiving would have made this very difficult to manage, I think.
Well written Dave. I may joke about VNAV, LNAV and naps (or in the case of FI-FI managed mode) but I know that there are very few bad line pilots out there. Having said that, it would be nice to see more line pilots commit general aviation. Not for any reason of skill, but for the chance to remember that flying can be fun. And really, what pilot doesn't enjoy flying a cub from time to time?
Dave, you misunderstood me. The computers were all screwed up for sure as I am sure each and every pitot was iced over just the same. In that case, the standby ASI is no good either as it either takes input from one of those same pitots. The computers had no other option than to disconnect.
Trying to fly the aircraft using the ASI was hopeless at that point for humans and computers, trying to troubleshoot that was a waste of time. But being bombarded with error messages probably didn't make that clear to them.
What I am trying to say is, they *should* have been programmed to deal with the situation and say: "I am sorry Dave, something is really screwed up. I have it under control using plan B, but we need to work together on getting out of this mess."
Unfortunately, this is not a situation the engineers at Airbus thought likely to happen...
I fully agree (and have been trying to say all along!) that current computers couldn't do a better job right now. In future, I hope they will.
Dave: here's a question for you. Is the A/P in the Airbus completely integrated Airbus design, or is it the same unit you might find on other aircraft and it just gets its data, and provides control inputs to, the main flight computers?
Great post as usual Captain Dave. An insight from my own profession (medicine)is that errors (looked at as a small hole in a sheet of paper which represents a stage of a procedure) occur all the time and, individually, rarely result in catastrophe. Disaster strikes when a number of errors are not picked up and the "holes in the all the sheets of paper" line up. In aviation terms this could be thought of as, say, flying into a bad storm, only a medium time captain teamed with a low hours FO, etc. Much of the time you will "get away with it" but when something else happens......!!!
Also, the "ABC" should, perhaps, be:
Fly the airplane, and
Fly the airplane, and
Fly the airplane
Then do the rest!
baswell- I do not think that the stand-by pitot tube was iced; it's heat is from a different power source. If it was iced, they were probably in a very severe icing area. Having said that, the pitot tubes are supposed to handle any icing conditions.
Your question about the Airbus a/p: I would guess, and this is only a guess; most auto-pilot parts are shared technology between Boeing and Airbus. The flight management computers, Honeywells, are very similar.
nicnajack- Well, when I get home from a trip I am exhausted. The last thing I want to do is fly a Cessna. After a day of rest, I have to catch up on the yard work, etc. When I do feel like flying a Cessna, it is time to go back to work and fly a 320. But, I know what you mean...
Cap'n Dave, I wonder if you could comment on the degree of slack you perceive in the Airbus product. I ran the largest system engineering dept. in the US for some years - designing missiles, rockets and airframes. Our customers seldom heard the term slack - the good designers were always cognizant of it.
If your business runs three plastic bag machines two shifts a day and one breaks down, you have slack if there is a fourth machine sitting idle on standby. You also have slack since you can run the two remaining machines on a third shift until the failed machine is repaired. On highways, running at 50% capacity and 50% slack means a small accident causes little trouble. The same small accident on a highway running at 95% load causes the system to crash.
When an airbus is at the edge of the normal operating flight envelope, do you feel confident in the amount of slack at your disposal? At the autopilot's disposal? Care to compare to Boeing?
Thanks - always enjoy your thoughts and writing. You fly some of my designs.
'Slack' being so ingrained in me I failed to highlight its key characteristic. The highway case is a good example. Increasingly smaller errors have increasingly larger consequences as slack is reduced toward zero.
If the discussion is whether automation is good or not, I don't think the right thing to do is to compare Boeing to Airbus. My personal training into aviation limits to seeing all the air crash investigations/mayday episodes, but as I understand the amount of automation both manufacturers use is massive. I guess this is because the auto pilot(all auto systems included in this term) can fly you more comfortable, more economic and safer than the best pilots in the industry flying manually; all these three combine in the more economic term as comfort and safety records make an airline more profitable. If people would fly certain airline regardless of these attributes that airline would probably fly just one engine all the time to save fuel but safety and comfort add to profitability.
So a true comparison in terms of automation is whether, given the choice as someone said here, you would fly an Airbus 330 or an old Boeing that has no or only few automatic help options for the pilot. I would like to see the brave Boeing fan choosing the Boeing to feel safer.
Again turning to the air crash investigations I noticed that except for very few times the airbus plane did do the right thing even in event of a crash; I don't remember one saying this was a completely failure of the automatic systems. Appreciate that the discussion is not about this but on the interaction between automation and pilot but with a well trained pilot on board and airbus/boeing prevention systems I think the chances to have an accident are less than minimal.
One thing I don't get: I noted from the nova documentary on AF447 that the pilots that were put in the simulator in the assumed conditions of the crash saved the plane by adjusting the throttles and pitch of the airplane to a certain position. If the fail safe solution is the same regardless of the conditions why does the airbus not disengage the auto pilot leaving the plane in this state? I probably missed something, guess the airbus engineers have more training than the air crash investigation episodes. :)
One theory early on focussed on supercooled water droplets turing into ice so fast when they came in contact with the pitot tubes that it simply overwhelmed the heating system. If that was the case then 1) it would likely have frozen all of them, including stand by, and 2) we'll never know for sure as it wouldn't leave a trace.
Using standard components like A/P would make it very hard indeed to develop the software so that it can deal with this situation. You would need something much more tightly integrated. Shame, because technically, it is not impossible.
Very good post Captain Dave, thanks so much... also some very good and clear comments in this article!
Bas
Hal K- yeah, I think I understand your slack question. First, understand I really, really like the Airbus Industries product, having extensive experience in 3 of their narrow bodies. There is, in most envelopes, enough slack left to get out of trouble or to add more energy or take more energy away to control whatever situation you might be in... The Boeing is similar. Both a/c are work horses with proven records. All pilots are not created equal, that is for sure. The a/c have to be docile and well behaved in all regimes.
bas- thanks...
Captain Dave,
thank you for replying, my point though was not about the adequacy of flight software, however inelegantly I expressed it, so much that our digital conditioning is nowadays well formed away from the flight deck and ALPs follow those norms there (onto the flight deck) at at our peril? My question is how can pilots be made to retain a feel for flying in these extraordinary environments when the "user interface" to use the condescendingly IT jargon has such an abrupt boundary layer?
V
Capt. Dave,
Let me share from my experience as a low-time PPL. I got my PPL on a 1980's era C172; the closes thing to auto-pilot I had was the elevator trim. I got checked-out in a DA40 about a year ago.
I think there is this ominous transition where automation is entering the GA world. Considering that even LSA's have glass cockpits I worry whether ATP's 30 years from now will have the strong stick-and-rudder skills of pilots who trained with gas-gauged equipped aircraft. I personally like using automation, however; I think GA pilots need to understand that these systems still follow the design principles that works for a multi-crew aircraft where one can click, twist, and bump while the other keeps an eye on where the aircraft is going.
However, I think this is the same as when piston engines became more and more reliable more and more people only looked at the "Emergency" section of the POH so they can pass a checkride. In this case, as automation in GA aircraft gets better more and more people will only do enough stick-and-rudder skills so they can pass their checkride. I personally think we already see a degradation with stick-and-rudder skills among GA pilots. I fly out of KSNA where the pattern altitude is 850' MSL, yet I'll see someone who will go on a wide pattern and I can only assume it's because they listen to these "expert pilots" who preach never to make more than 30-degree bank turns close to the ground; or those that insist that doing a turn-around after take off is "impossible"--that's why I actually got myself trained to execute the so-called "impossible turn".
long time reader and propeller head with growing bald spot.I live in Takoma Park MD,right under patterns for DCA and Andrews Field.Noticed much incoming to Andrews several days ago and now the rumble of F-16's flying top cover for DC has been going on for 2 days.So,think of these pilots,away from home,flying a mission they hope they dont have to do.Dave you guys fly over coming from the ESE dip your wings
Hello Captain Dave
I have been reading your blog for a long time now and thoughtly enjoy reading it and if I can say this without it sounding like I am blowing sunshine up your six I would go as far as saying that a lot of travelling pax would be grateful for your professional insight that you provide and further a large number of people are simply terrified or afraid of flying but your words of comfort ease that tension as it has for me. I thank you sir for your blog as it has given me comfort and eased my feeble mind from the riggers of air travel.
Regards
Ian from Australia
As a flight instructor for a cadet pilot training program of a major foreign airline, I can say that we train our pilots heavily on the basics of airmanship. Even after coming from a major US university that rhymes with Imbry Liddle, I initially had difficulty transitioning to a program that focused so much on the basics of airmanship. So much so, that our company actually removes GPS systems and any other added technology that are installed when we buy the planes. (We still do our cross country flights with sectionals, plotters and the non-battery flight computers. )
Although many programs today advertise the advantages of training in an "electric-Cessna" and getting that first airline job after 8months of basic training, recent problems in the industry have made me appreciate what my company has been sticking to.
Unfortunately, when a significant amount of money drives decisions at an airline, that 8month pilot becomes a candidate for the right seat. Although I don't question the safety of most airlines, it is pilots like you who keep them safe.
Dave,
I love your blog. I also enjoy these automation debate posts.
Question for you. What is the background of most new-generation airline pilots in the U.S.? Are most of them plucked out of flight school with 200 hrs to their name?
Here in Canada most ATPLs have spent the first few years of their career grinding it out in the Canadian north in the bush, hand flying Beavers, Otters, Navajos, or Cessnas. Its unheard of to see an A320 cockpit with less than 4000 hrs flight time. I can say with a fair amount of confidence that even the young ones like myself have a large amount of experience hand-flying airplanes.
Personally my job as a survey pilot involves flying a Navajo at 200' agl, often in mountains, while flying a line within +/- 15 ft of center. And then we make steep turns to reverse and do it again.
It could be a blessing or a curse to have cut your teeth on a hand-flown airplane, a blessing because if things go wrong with the automation on the Electric jet, you can go back to what feels natural... a curse if it prevents you from learning how to utilize the full potential of the automation.
So do the majority of american Airbus pilots have the hand-flying background that Canadians do, or do they cut their teeth on automated machines?
Dave...yes software glitch or design error the stall warning stops sounding when the aircraft drops below a certain speed. That was the confusion, lower the nose and you go faster thus enabling the stall warning, raise the nose the warning stops as the aircraft slows. The BEA prelim pretty much says that they were screwed in within the first 90 seconds with no chance for recovery thereafter.
My point about flying the plane wasn't that they weren't but it's clear that the overwhelming and confusing information played a role. I don't know the 'bus at all but aren't there at least a few good old steam gauges as backup for when the Star Trek stuff goes haywire?
BEA is saying that too much nose up after George quit is what kicked off the fatal chain of events. That said, they did exactly as they were trained to, which works fine close to the ground but in the rare air not so much. They also criticized the lack of an AOA indicator but not so sure that that would've made a difference.
You're right though, it's easy to armchair quarterback from the comfort of my Laz-y-Boy. I certainly don't mean any disrespect and apologize if I offended you. I think all three pilots did everything they could in a situation I'd never want to find myself in. My fly the plane remark is simply that sometimes we have too much information when what is needed is basic stick and rudder skills with a couple of steam gauges. Whether anything would've made a difference or not for AF447 is yet to be seen.
Captain Dave,
Perhaps the chief underlying problem arises from conflicting information from the systems never having been seen. As long as there is no discrepancy among the systems, there is no problem. When there are differing measurements, is the pilot trained to calculate what is accurate and what is false? I think not, but maybe you have different information.
Remember the scene from The China Syndrome where someone taps a dial and the water level, which indicated full, drops to empty? How does one prepare for something that comes once in a lifetime and where all one's previous experience has repeatedly been that one thing not happening? For the meaning of the situation to be understood, one needs an overview. How can there be such an overview if it is never previously seen?
Hope this is not a stupid comment.
Post a Comment