6 ms·
> First most obvious, how come do pilots trust a system that has these layers of manual security checks with their lives. And second, can't it all be automated?
by miketery 7y ago
> First most obvious, how come do pilots trust a system that has these layers of manual security checks with their lives. And second, can't it all be automated?
The trust comes from understanding the system and associated risk that contribute to conditions where the system is out of normal operating range. Pilots learn that doing simple checks on parts of the system that are likliest to contribute to abnormal operations is life saving in the long run. E.g. may seem simple that control locks werent taken off but it happens and it's why we check the controls prior to take off. It's why we put the engines to fill throttle to make sure oil pressure is as expected.
Anytime there is an accident many pilots will read the reports and add an additional check or reemphasize a current check that they need to continue to use.
As far as automation. It could fix it. But it increases system complexity so there will be this valley where for a while the automated system isn't much better than normal checks, infact might be worse due to over reliance. Also logic in software or hardware can lie to you in ways that mechanical realities of moving control surfaces, checking oil level, checking tire pressure can't be beat (at least with a cheap solution). This is why the FAA for critical components requires multiple systems doing the same thing and concensus algorithms.
Recently I bought a lemon for a motorcycle. The ECU started giving me error codes twenty five minutes into my first ride. Engine started cutting out. I couldn't start it. On the other hand in a Cessna I could lose all electrical power (assuming magnetos are still operating) and still operate the plane just fine, although without radio comms. The Cessna is from 1972, while the motorcycle from 2017. Granted I could've checked wires or inspected more carefully but non the less, the 2017 motorcycle is a more complex system.
- phkahler 7y agoThe motorcycle engine is LESS reliable than a well maintained Cessna. But I suspect the motorcycle was not well maintained, perhaps not well designed, and you should not have been driving it.
- jacquesm 7y agoShort of a teardown I don't see how the buyer of a second hand motorcycle would have a chance at spotting such a fault without driving the bike. And even a teardown might not show the fault, in fact could make it worse.
- lmm 7y agoThat's equally true for an aeroplane engine - the difference is that no pilot would skip performing maintenance at the required intervals and there are maintenance logs etc. in place to enforce this. What makes the Cessna engine more reliable than the motorbike engine in practice isn't a simpler design but a better maintenance and operation culture.
- jacquesm 7y agoSure. But the accepted norms for buying second hand aircraft versus second hand motorcycles are quite different as well, which is why it makes no sense to say that the buyer should not have driven the motorcycle. The accepted norm for cars and motorcycles is that you pay the seller and you drive them home, not that you inspect the detailed maintenance log or do an on-site teardown. Likely the seller was aware that this bike had problems and simply did not tell the buyer, something that is close to fraud, and on top of that this placed the buyer in a potentially dangerous situation, especially on a new bike. When I buy cars I do a pretty thorough inspection and an extended test drive. Even so I once ended up with a car on which the clutch pedal would not return once every few hundred strokes or so, something that by chance did not happen even once in a pretty long test drive.
- Infernal 7y agoI know this is a bit of a tangent, but the motorcycle didn't happen to be a Royal Enfield did it? They seem to have lots of wiring harness abrasion issues.
- miketery 7y agoMoto Guzzi V7. Might end up being simple ECU reset or fix. I’m just glad I was tooling around in a neighborhood getting comfortable, and letting the failure percolate. Otherwise would’ve been much worse had I gone straight to the highway.
- ak217 7y agoThere is a middle ground, and I think people should demand more in that respect. Yes, cutting engine power is more hazardous in an aircraft than in a motorcycle. So the aircraft should produce a clear warning when takeoff power is applied but control surface locks are sensed as present. Or when takeoff power is applied and the rudder/ailerons/elevators haven't been fully deflected since startup (indicating controls haven't been checked). Or when the altimeter reading has a gross disagreement with the GPS altitude, etc. We should expect more from our automation without letting it get in a position where it can compromise safety.