That single line speaks volumes about the clash of cultures on this thread. And I don't mean the clash of any ethnic cultures like the aforementioned (and others) are still trying to push. I mean of the complete lack of understanding of the differences between large modern airlines and other aircraft in the industry.SheriffPatGarrett wrote: That a real pilotless airplane like CID is advocating, the nec plus ultra, captured by these Mullahs...wanna ride?
No, I did not advocate pilotless aircraft in this thread. Certainly not for current technology airliners. I did however strongly make the case for a high degree of automation in large commercial airliners. Unfortunately, Mr. Garrett, you don't seen to be able to wrap your mind around the difference.
Anyone flying an aircraft should not only be capable, but HIGHLY proficient in the operation of their aircraft. Especially if they are flying commercially. In comparison, I don't expect a low time guy who is building hours on his 152 to be "highly" proficient but he/she is arguably participating in a much lower risk activity.
Now comes to hard part for some of you old timers. If you can fly a 777 with a high level of proficiency, that doesn't mean you can fly an aerobatic circuit in a Pitts at an air show. It doesn't mean that you could fly a Twin Otter on a lake side esker in the arctic. It doesn't mean that you would have a clue about flying on floats or flying water bombers or know what to do when your piston twin loses an engine.
That may have been in the case in the past but you don't just "fly" a 777. You operate it. A 777 is one of the most capable airplanes in the world. By that I mean it can move a great deal of people, at a very high speed, over very large distances over very unforgiving environments. Crossing the north pole is a daily occurrence for many 777s. And it’s all done with two crewmembers. Obviously more to account for long crossings to account for fatigue and duty cycles.
To achieve all that, a great deal of technology is incorporated. A VERY high degree of automation is used to effectively reduce the work load to the capabilities of the flight crew. A VERY high degree of reliability for those systems is imposed so that the probability of a failure that would increase the workload to a level where the flightcrew would have difficulty handling is very low.
That is the automation angle that I brought to the discussion. These pilots are trained for the aircraft they are flying. Not a turbo-Otter, not a Cessna 172, not even a 737.
So how on earth could these pilot’s crash a perfectly serviceable aircraft and cause all this calamity? Based on the information at hand, it was caused by a mistake. A “pilot error” is what we usually call it. Not a “Korean” pilot error. Not an “Asian” pilot error. Simply “pilot” error.
Many accidents have been documented where pilot error resulted in deaths of passengers over the years. Many were flown by “white” pilots. I would hazard a guess that the majority of large airliner accidents over the years were piloted by “white” pilots. So why the whole “culture” thing?
Many of the remarks regarding culture come from good ol’ North American pilots who seem to have more difficulty with understanding the ethnic culture of the pilots they are hired to train than with what they are training them on. No Captain UAL, you are not training them to fly a Beech 1900 between Chicago and Springfield.
The bottom line is that it would be near impossible to operate an aircraft like the 777 with two crew members without a VERY HIGH degree of automation. And no…..automation does not equal “autopilot”. It’s much broader than that.
Another very simple statement that speaks volumes. Did you know that most “older” folks wouldn’t be able to operate a Gameboy? Back when VCRs were in vogue many older airline pilots couldn’t program them or even set the time. It’s nothing new. When TVs were introduced, there was a learning curve. Same with automobiles.Cat Driver wrote: Game boy masters?
How about FMCs? Many of those guys “let” the youngsters in the right seat program the FMC during their last few years until they could retire gracefully. It's very difficult to teach old dogs (and cats) new tricks. New systems and higher levels of automation all result in more training. Sometimes the training affects very fundamental long standing principals. Imagine all the angst felt by captains when CRM was introduced.
The “culture” is changing. It is constantly changing and will continue to change. Some can adapt, some can't. The 777 is not your grandfather’s airplane.