3 ms·
I have 15 hours in a Cessna 172, I’d be happy to give it a go! But in all seriousness, in no way shape or form should the testing be informed by the skill asse
by zaroth 7y ago
I have 15 hours in a Cessna 172, I’d be happy to give it a go!
But in all seriousness, in no way shape or form should the testing be informed by the skill assessment of the test operator.
The analysis should be looking at the tasks that had to be performed during the test, whether they were properly identified by easily selected checklists, and quantitative measurements of the complexity and physical difficulty of the tasks.
If it comes anywhere close to a question of the skill or strength of the specific test-taker then something has gone terribly horribly wrong.
In old school UI testing you would do GOMS analysis which allowed calculating the difficulty of specific tasks based on the actual manipulations required to perform them. The skill of the particular operator is not generally a factor in these types of analysis.
The subtitle of TFA states;
> Safety board says FAA should embrace data-driven approach to assumptions about pilot responses
This is a much more reasonable statement. For instance, the maximum physical force required to perform the task must be an industry standard that pilots are all certified to be able to perform.
- cjrp 7y agoIt would be interesting if all of the airlines' own recurrent simulator sessions (every 6 months, IIRC) resulted in data being fed back to the FAA. You've got a huge sample size right there, and they try out all of these unexpected scenarios.
- londons_explore 7y agoYou could take a probabilistic approach... In this 1 in a million situation, 90% of tested pilots managed to follow the procedures to recover. Therefore the chance of a fatal crash is 1 in 10 million. Let the manufacturer decide if they want to make the situation rarer or the training better to reduce the overall crash risk.