3 ms·

All equipment on the plane has a potential for failure... the question is what systematic design and pilot training is in place to take action in the face of fa

All equipment on the plane has a potential for failure... the question is what systematic design and pilot training is in place to take action in the face of failures.

iscrewyou 8y ago
I don’t think it’s fair to put pilot training and systematic design right next to each other. If the design in itself, and the subsequent factors of safety are at fault, pilots can’t recover from that fast enough. Why put them in a dangerous situation and expect them to recover. How long could this go on even if we didn’t have these two plane crashes. The pilots/airlines could be at fault for not training too much but the bigger issue is the system in the question. It’s like saying the drivers don’t know how to drive because the manufacturer didnt put it front and center on the driver’s manual that the car suddenly swerves right. As ic drivers should always have their hands tight on the wheels and be ready for situations like that. It’s not fair.
- digikata 8y ago
  The pilot training is part of the overall systematic design, neither the equipment, nor the pilots exist alone.
peteradio 8y ago
What? Does the degree of failure not matter at all? That makes no sense. The question is whether all these parts are actually meeting the specified failure tolerance rate.
- digikata 8y ago
  It matters, but if the rate of failure is high enough to be expected to be encountered within an all-fleet, constant flight environment for the lifetime of the aircraft, then you plan for failures as well as having the pilot know what to do when there is a failure. In air sensors like this, their failures are higher than the rate at which you can ignore. They fail on their own, they get bumped and bent on the ground, they ice over in the air, or have objects striking them.
duxup 8y ago
There certainly are examples of sensors failing or providing conflicting data, and pilots using prescribed backup systems to rely on in order to get home safe.

All equipment on the plane has a potential for failure... the question is what systematic design and pilot training is in place to take action in the face of failures.

iscrewyou 8y ago

I don’t think it’s fair to put pilot training and systematic design right next to each other. If the design in itself, and the subsequent factors of safety are at fault, pilots can’t recover from that fast enough. Why put them in a dangerous situation and expect them to recover. How long could this go on even if we didn’t have these two plane crashes. The pilots/airlines could be at fault for not training too much but the bigger issue is the system in the question. It’s like saying the drivers don’t know how to drive because the manufacturer didnt put it front and center on the driver’s manual that the car suddenly swerves right. As ic drivers should always have their hands tight on the wheels and be ready for situations like that. It’s not fair.

digikata 8y ago
The pilot training is part of the overall systematic design, neither the equipment, nor the pilots exist alone.

peteradio 8y ago

What? Does the degree of failure not matter at all? That makes no sense. The question is whether all these parts are actually meeting the specified failure tolerance rate.

digikata 8y ago
It matters, but if the rate of failure is high enough to be expected to be encountered within an all-fleet, constant flight environment for the lifetime of the aircraft, then you plan for failures as well as having the pilot know what to do when there is a failure. In air sensors like this, their failures are higher than the rate at which you can ignore. They fail on their own, they get bumped and bent on the ground, they ice over in the air, or have objects striking them.

duxup 8y ago

There certainly are examples of sensors failing or providing conflicting data, and pilots using prescribed backup systems to rely on in order to get home safe.