Air India plane crash: 'Sleepy' pilot blamed

[Barkaie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11772562

[Meatservo]

They have a "special buzzer" to wake up sleeping pilots? How about inventing a "special computer" to replace airline pilots? I'm starting to like the idea more and more.

[Eric Janson]

The "Buzzer" used to wake up the Pilots in the previous incident was the HF SELCAL. HF was still tuned to Mumbai Radio from the crossing of the Arabian Sea.

Don't expect much accuracy in any news reports from Indian media.

Always easier to blame a dead Pilot than to look at company rostering practices or company policies regarding hard landings both of which contributed to this accident. It will be interesting to see how much of that makes its way into the final report.

[Meatservo]

You're right Eric. That comment about computers was uncalled-for.

[Eric Janson]

You're right Eric. That comment about computers was uncalled-for.

You're closer to the truth than you'd imagine.

Most of my work is done by Computers - I'm more of a "Systems Monitor" than a Pilot these days.

[Gear Jerker]

You really think so? Perhaps 99.9% of the time a computer can do just fine on it's own, but the .1% of the time when something goes wrong, I like to think one of us is flying and can use our amazing brain to find creative solutions to problems. I also like to think that if some programmer put a 1 instead of a 0, a human being can still hand fly an aircraft. Also, I wonder how many people would be willing to board a plane with no pilots?

I think that AF447 is an interesting example. Disclaimer: I'm still flying Cessna's, I'm 10 years away from flying any kind of Airbus, so please correct me if I'm wrong about anything pertaining to the aircraft and its systems.
The pitot tubes were blocked by ice, the aircraft sensed invalid information and switched to Alternate Law. From this point, we can all play armchair pilot and say what the crew should have done. I hope that the majority of crews are able to recognize a stall, and recover accordingly, and AF447, Colgan Air, are tragic anomalies.

A question for 'Eric Janson'; What, in theory, does an A330 do in Alternate Law with invalid airspeed information?
(Lets leave out the numerous other 'links in the chain', to keep this to a man vs machine discussion as opposed to an AF447 discussion.

[floatpilot]

a hand held gps or a simple garmin 196 would have gave the pilots all the info they needed to keep the thing straight and level. The mayday episode where they crashed into the red sea because of tape on the pito tube is another example of machine and computers not solving a simple problem. I'm not an airline pilot but i do fly IFR and i could not figure out why the pilots could not figure out how fast they were flying or their altitude! a $100 gps could of gave that information!

[TeePeeCreeper]

The mayday episode where they crashed into the red sea because of tape on the pito tube is another example of machine and computers not solving a simple problem.

AeroPeru 603 did not CFIT into the Red Sea... Had they crashed there, it would have been a huge lack of situational awareness as they were flying MIA-LIM!!!

Perhaps basic stick and rudder skills should be focused on rather than "oh geez, the computer did not figure this one out for me" type of mentality... As CSPURR32 seems to indicate it "should" be?

Let's face it, sure a seperate source of info (Garmin whatever) might have helped the doomed AF crew, but those lads had plenty of systems far more advanced then a Garmin96 to provide the PF with sufficient raw data to take the right corrective actions....

The Indian crash in question seems to be a case of pilot fatigue and roastering issues... The Capt'n son tried to explain the circumstances of his father's scheduling (rather lack of) as a potential cause to the Indian DCA but was stonedwalled until he went public if I remember correctly....

[trey kule]

You really think so? Perhaps 99.9% of the time a computer can do just fine on it's own, but the .1% of the time when something goes wrong, I like to think one of us is flying and can use our amazing brain to find creative solutions to problems

.

You really thing so? The fact is that nearly 75% of the in flight accidents are causied by crew error. You have to wonder how good our amazing brains are with their creative solutions to such things as attempting a landing with a large tailwind, or departing with frost the wings.

Yes computers will cause accidents, but one has to question whether, in fact, they would not reduce the overall accident rate if there were no pilots on board. RPV pilot can get relief and be less fatigued. Has help available immediately in a crisis....

some pilots seem to totally ignore the pilot caused accidents, when they consider computer accidents. The question is not whether computer/RPV piloted airplanes will have accidents...Of course they will. But whether or not overall they will be safer than pilot in cockpit flown aircraft.
And the stats are building to prove the former, though people will always fear computer malfunction, so with pax planes it will be many years. Military is already in the last gen of training fighter pilots. Transport next, and then on to the civilian world for transport aircraft

The truth is most heavy modern aircraft are simply to complex to be flown manaully , in normal cirucmstances, and being taken over by pilots manually in emergencies does not have a great record. One of the most recent was the amazing creative brains that could not recognize a stall, and apply simple correct procedures.

Fatigue is as much the responsabilty of the individual as the company. I have seen pilots up all night proving the pilot/pig difference...Were they to tired...You bet? Company's fault...Not one bit.
So they claim fatigue, and the company has to bring in a relief pilot.. Yeah...thats fair.
On the other hand, I have seen companies who put two crews on a plane. One to fly outbound, and one to fly the return..And those pilots are bagged and dangerous....Good thing we have so much automation or we would be bumping more equipment into the ground

[Gear Jerker]

Perhaps basic stick and rudder skills should be focused on rather than "oh geez, the computer did not figure this one out for me" type of mentality... As CSPURR32 seems to indicate it "should" be?

I don't know if I explained my position poorly, or if you misinterpreted, but I am not suggesting that pilots ought to sit there and watch a computer do all the work all the time. In fact, quite the opposite is what I'm suggesting.

@trey kule:

There is no denying the statistics you present regarding the causes of accidents.

I am curious as to your evidence when you say that fighter jets are in the last generation of human flying, and that military cargo are next, and finally onto commercial?

I do think that automation should play a role, however I also think pilots should have ultimate authority. As somebody who obsessively studies aircraft accidents and strives to learn from the mistakes of others, my personal belief is that improvement needs to occur with pilot training, and especially with the human factors side.

No question, a lot of accidents that are caused by pilot error, all things being equal, may not have occurred had a properly programmed computer been doing the flying. However, with the unpredictability that is aviation, I still think that a human ought to be at the controls.

What would completely automated aircraft have done, for example, on 9/11? What would completely automated aircraft have done during the megathrust earthquake in Japan, where diversions became necessary?

What would a completely automated AF447 have looked like? Would the result have been different?

[trey kule]

Ok. First my opinion that we are witnessing the last generation of manned fighters, or evidence of it, as you asked....
Lots of references if you want to take the time to google it, but here are a couple.
1. From the Minister of Defence UK.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/07 ... er_repeat/
Note the comment that no manned fighters are in future development.
2. Comments from Adm Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (USA)
3. The USAF is now training more RPV pilots than fighter pilots.
4. RPV aircraft are already in our system, Even in Canada, and they are climbing and descending through our airspace.
I dont want to get into a big argument over this. as we all can have out opinions, and seek evidence to try and prove it.
As to your what if questions (or implied statements). Individual cases are only valid if they representative. Otherwise, it is using an example to simply make an irrelevent point. It is something the media has successfully used to promote fear mongering, and one has to be careful as to how valid the example is. I will leave them alone.. But here is something to think about. I am old enough to remember the first operational flights of the 747. The "what if" crowd immediately jumped on it and asked what if two of them should ever collide..Insurance companies would go broke..the 747 would disappear.
Well, in the Canary islands two of them did collide. The 747s are stil with us today.. Good thing cooler heads did not listen to the what if crowd..BTW, one has to wonder in that accident if a computer rpv controlled 747 would have tried to take off on the wrong runway.

It is human nature to think we are the pinacle of thinking, and while that may be true, we also have some very serious human foibles. The question is which will ultimately prove a safer way to fly an aircraft. No one who ever brings forth the what if the computer fails scenario mentions things like the two pilots that tried to fly a CRJ to FL510 for kicks, or the pilots that got focussed on a gear warning light and ran out of fuel in an airliner. Or the pilots (3 of them) who were piddling around with a false warning and let the plane fly into the everglades.
It is all about overall numbers..Not individual examples. Which will ultimately prove safer..
My bet is for RPVs in future complex aircraft.

[Cat Driver]

my personal belief is that improvement needs to occur with pilot training, and especially with the human factors side.

" Human factors " has a nice warm fuzzy feel to it cspurr32, but can you elaborate on what so called human factors need to be taught...and by who?

[Eric Janson]

A question for 'Eric Janson'; What, in theory, does an A330 do in Alternate Law with invalid airspeed information?
(Lets leave out the numerous other 'links in the chain', to keep this to a man vs machine discussion as opposed to an AF447 discussion.

The autopilot and autothrust will both disconnect. You will need to fly the aircraft manually. It's back to basics - pitch & power.

I've seen a report from another Airline that lost airspeed indications crossing the Pacific at night. They flew pitch & power and when they got the airspeed back they were within 5 knots of target speed.

[FL_CH]

UAVs still have human operators behind them.

A computer can perform a task superbly (such as flying the programmed path), but you still need a human to make decisions, and it's those decisions that often lead to the "pilot error" accidents. Computers will not prevent taking off overweight, busting the MDA, or leaving wings contaminated.

[BTyyj]

UAVs still have human operators behind them.

A computer can perform a task superbly (such as flying the programmed path), but you still need a human to make decisions, and it's those decisions that often lead to the "pilot error" accidents. Computers will not prevent taking off overweight, busting the MDA, or leaving wings contaminated.

+1

If you had two pilots, one that made every single decision and the other who just flew the plane exactly like the decision maker told them, it would almost always be the fault of the decision maker in an incident.

[Gear Jerker]

Ok. First my opinion that we are witnessing the last generation of manned fighters, or evidence of it, as you asked....
Lots of references if you want to take the time to google it, but here are a couple.
1. From the Minister of Defence UK.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/07 ... er_repeat/
Note the comment that no manned fighters are in future development.
2. Comments from Adm Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (USA)
3. The USAF is now training more RPV pilots than fighter pilots.
4. RPV aircraft are already in our system, Even in Canada, and they are climbing and descending through our airspace.
I dont want to get into a big argument over this. as we all can have out opinions, and seek evidence to try and prove it.
As to your what if questions (or implied statements). Individual cases are only valid if they representative. Otherwise, it is using an example to simply make an irrelevent point. It is something the media has successfully used to promote fear mongering, and one has to be careful as to how valid the example is. I will leave them alone.. But here is something to think about. I am old enough to remember the first operational flights of the 747. The "what if" crowd immediately jumped on it and asked what if two of them should ever collide..Insurance companies would go broke..the 747 would disappear.
Well, in the Canary islands two of them did collide. The 747s are stil with us today.. Good thing cooler heads did not listen to the what if crowd..BTW, one has to wonder in that accident if a computer rpv controlled 747 would have tried to take off on the wrong runway.

It is human nature to think we are the pinacle of thinking, and while that may be true, we also have some very serious human foibles. The question is which will ultimately prove a safer way to fly an aircraft. No one who ever brings forth the what if the computer fails scenario mentions things like the two pilots that tried to fly a CRJ to FL510 for kicks, or the pilots that got focussed on a gear warning light and ran out of fuel in an airliner. Or the pilots (3 of them) who were piddling around with a false warning and let the plane fly into the everglades.
It is all about overall numbers..Not individual examples. Which will ultimately prove safer..
My bet is for RPVs in future complex aircraft.

Thank you for those references, I had no idea that we were at this point already re: implementing unmanned aircraft.

I think that humans are the pinnacle of thinking, but I don't think that we are beyond giving in to certain animal emotions in certain moments which prove to be disastrous; there are countless examples in which this is true, which you are right to point out.
I'm not trying to spread fear and panic, and those probably weren't the best examples I used. I am trying to point out that certain situations can frequently arise in which a decision has to be made which simply may not be programmed into a machine already.
By 'human factors', I'm specifically referring to decision making, and crew resource management. I also think that psychology should become a more intricate focus in pilot medicals, to try to reduce the number of incidents in which pilots do things despite knowing that it's not safe (ie flying an approach into wx beyond limits, flying fatigued, not speaking up when a flying pilot is doing something dangerous, etc.)

The Tenerife example is a good one, and yes, a computer controlled aircraft (as opposed to one flown by KLM's chief pilot who epitomized complacency) would not have taken off without takeoff clearance.

I think we ought to try to solve the problem before we transform the whole industry (and at what financial cost, btw?). If we can't solve the problem, and the same accidents keep happening despite a revolution in pilot training/screening, then maybe we won't have a choice.

I hope to get paid to fly airplanes for a long time

But I guess this is how factory workers felt at the onset of the industrial revolution.