8 ms·

Why do pilots still die from not knowing which end is up?

83 points by sajid 15y ago

bwooceli 15y ago
Good article, but I am a bit confused about how someone in 1906 (2nd page, top paragraph) supposedly did research on vestibular effects on pilots...
- tzs 15y ago
  I don't see anything particularly confusing about that. The Wright brothers flew in 1903, and if we don't limit ourselves to pilots of heavier than air craft, Zeppelins started flying in 1900. It would be perfectly reasonable for a 1906 researcher to look into things that might effect pilots. That said, the article may be mistaken in the sense that the research, while applicable to pilots, appears to have actually been motivated by his work with patients suffering from dizzy spells. (BTW, he received the 1914 Nobel Prize in medicine for this research).
- mechanical_fish 15y ago
  This article includes a statistic so scary that I'm going to have to fight the urge to paste it twice: According to a 2004 study, the average life expectancy of a non-instrument-rated pilot who flies into clouds or instrument conditions is 178 seconds. At that rate, I'd imagine it didn't take long after the first plane flight for pilots to notice that there was a big problem with, say, closing your eyes or otherwise getting distracted while flying. Or perhaps a pilot or two tried flying into a cloud -- it's the sort of thing you'd try to do if you could, right? -- and their remaining colleagues then started wondering why flying into clouds was such a sure-fire way to die. Death sure does have a way of crystallizing such questions. The other point I'd make is that fixed-wing aircraft research probably had obvious potential military applications even in the prewar age of 1906. Perhaps this research was funded so early for much the same reason that astronaut-physiology research was well funded even before the first astronaut reached low-earth orbit.
  - sliverstorm 15y ago
    Your parent is probably skeptical because in 1906 total human powered winged flight time could reasonably be measured in minutes. Europe still believed it was a hoax. Pilots didn't even have instruments let alone a cockpit. If you were a pilot, odds are your name was either Orville or Wilbur. Remember, the Wright brothers first flew in 1903. As another reply points out, it was likely blimp, balloon or some other form of aviation that spurred the research on vestibular effects.
    - 0x12 15y ago
      You forgot about Santos-Dumont, and many others besides. Europe definitely didn't believe it was a hoax, in fact there were lots of people working at attempting powered flight. That does not diminish the accomplishments of the Wright brothers in any way, but to make it seem as though Europe did not believe powered flight was possible is not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_history The time was simply ripe, lots of the bits and pieces had been developed by those that had gone before, such as Lilienthal (who built some pretty amazing gliders) and many others.
      - sliverstorm 15y ago
        I don't mean Europe thought it couldn't be done, I meant they didn't believe it had been accomplished yet.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
biot 15y ago
I've had a similar experience while driving on a highway at night in foggy conditions. All of a sudden my car started slowing down and was rapidly losing power. I checked and it wasn't fuel, so I figured the engine was dying somehow. It wasn't until I tried gearing down that I realized I had been on a steep hill and fifth gear wasn't powerful enough. But even afterward, I couldn't sense that I was on an incline.
- 0x12 15y ago
  I have a simple trick for that: I know the consumption of my car on a level road in 5th gear at 90 km/h, so when I'm in doubt about whether or not I'm going up, down or level I look at the fuel consumption indicator. If it is higher than 6.6L/100km then I'm going up, less is down. If you don't have a fuel consumption indicator then that will not work but lots of cars have them these days and I think using them as a level is a useful unintended application.
  - mkr-hn 15y ago
    This is the first I've heard of fuel consumption indicators. What kind of car is it?
    - 0x12 15y ago
      Citroen C8/Peugeot 807 (same car, different badge). It's built into the trip computer.
    - apaprocki 15y ago
      All car computers know this even if they don't display it to you. The computer directly controls the flow in the injectors and the computer knows their flow rate (unless you swap them out, of couse).
    - dalke 15y ago
      First I saw was in a Saab 9000, around 1991.
    - caf 15y ago
3pt14159 15y ago
How are there not heads up systems that detect this? A simple "warning 5 seconds to impact with the ocean" would at least warn the pilot.
- mynameishere 15y ago
  Even little planes have those. What they need is a switch to tell the computer that they expect no descent whatsoever below xy000 feet, to stop it before it starts. You can hear that warning here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjaU-SKYrPk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjaU-SKYrPk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzDSq6m2zV4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzDSq6m2zV4
  - apaprocki 15y ago
    I was going to suggest this in my post. A "dead-man"'s limit. A plane would lock you out and right itself it detected you dropped below some pre-defined altitude (e.g. within an acceptable angle without landing gear deployed or a greater than acceptable angle with or without landing gear deployed). Whatever altitude is necessary for the plane to right itself from the steepest descent. Something like that would make it impossible for someone to storm a cockpit and nose-dive a plane. It would need appropriate remote electronic and mechanical overrides, though to prevent possibly losing a plane if it was triggered incorrectly. But at least a plane flying level on lockout autopilot would buy some time opposed to it definitely being destroyed by the nose-dive.
- 7952 15y ago
  But it would still require action from a pilot, who is known to be disorientated, and probably quite upset about their imminent collision with the ocean. Perhaps an alternative would be to use a belt that vibrates differently depending on the angle of the aircraft. Humans are good at integrating data without conscious thought. This has been used with compass direction on the ground to dramatically improve spatial awareness without any conscious effort http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/esp.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/esp.html.
- scott_s 15y ago
greendot 15y ago
> According to a 2004 study, the average life expectancy of a non-instrument-rated pilot who flies into clouds or instrument conditions is 178 seconds. That is a chilling statistic. As a VFR pilot, I often wonder what would happen inside a cloud to make me react and rip my plane apart in under 3 minutes.
- ispolin 15y ago
  Here is the fatal scenario: http://www.aerosafe.net/page6.html http://www.aerosafe.net/page6.html As a VFR pilot, you've received basic instrument training. Remember that training, trust your instruments, and you'll make it though.
  - electromagnetic 15y ago
    With an altimeter, an artificial horizon and an airspeed indicator, you would expect a VFR pilot to be able to get through any light cloud safely. Untrained, never having touched the cockpit of a plane, I can get the meaning from these instruments. Is it simply that pilots fly without these, or that they simply disregard them during flight?
    - ispolin 15y ago
      Neither. In US, your plane has to have the 6 basic instruments to be certified as airworthy by FAA. The reasons pilots die in non-visual flight conditions are twofold. As the original article pointed out, the first reason is that the sensations are so compelling that doing what the instruments tell you will feel VERY unnatural and you will keep thinking that your instruments are broken or stuck (hence you HAVE to trust your instruments). And even if you remember not to trust your instincts, you will still often unconsciously apply slight pressure to the controls. The second reason is that for every change in the plane's orientation and speed, several instruments will start moving at once. Without training it is very hard to integrate what the 6 instruments are telling you into a complete mental picture of what's going on with your airplane.
  - vacri 15y ago
ak217 15y ago
I don't see this article presenting the full picture of how this problem will be addressed in the future. As ADIRUs (navigation computers) improve to better integrate GPS and inertial signals in all conditions even when all air data is lost, weather-related instrumentation failures will decrease. Next, putting a worldwide terrain map in the navigation system will let it compute whether it will hit the ground if the course is maintained - again, even when ground radar is not working. Next, heads-up displays or helmet-mounted displays with better warning systems will make sure that the pilot receives the warning. And most importantly, when the pilot feels that they don't know how to react to the warning, they will be able to push a button to let the autopilot return the plane to wings-level flight.
apaprocki 15y ago
Given the analysis of what happened in the recent Air France crash, I can't imagine why the industry does not write better software to help combat this. It seems as if the programmers writing the software are more concerned about writing valid code to fit the designed system ("the pilot signaled us to climb at exactly 40 degrees, so do it") rather than writing code that models the real world situations accurately. I found this bit of an article about the crash the most troubling: It was at this point, after autopilot turned off and they worked to change their course, that a stall warning sounded, meaning that the airplane wasn't generating enough lift. The report notes the co-pilot grabbed the controls and lifted the plane, which, according to aviation experts is contrary to normal procedure during a stall, when the nose should in fact be lowered. If pulling back on the stick should never be done when a plane is warning of a stall, why does the software allow a pilot to do it? This is surely simplifying the situation, but I can't believe we are incapable of writing better software to prevent human mistakes. I wonder what kind of hard limits do exist in the current avionics. For instance, is it possible to roll a Boeing/Airbus upside-down? If yes, why?
- 0x12 15y ago
  What the pilot will do to keep the passenger and plane safe can't be foretold by software written in static situations on terra firma. Sensors can lie, equipment can break. Your software may have no better idea of the true situation than the pilot. In the end it is a judgment call and if you limit the ability of those judgment calls to a bunch of software then you are saying that those in a different time and place have a better idea of what to do than those with their feet in the dirt. It looks like in this case someone made the wrong judgment call. False positives in warning systems in commercial aircraft are happening with some regularity, in the end the pilot has final say.
  - apaprocki 15y ago
    I think a more robust model of N completely different systems (both mechanical and electrical) to compute the same variable could be found so that the probability that it is computing a value outside of x% of the actual real value is lower than the probability that the human could make a mistake. Even if a speed indicator model in the event of pitot tube loss had a 25% margin of error, autopilot could have done the right thing or it could have possibly influenced their decision to pull back. EDIT: You can down-vote, but this is already the direction that cars have gone. For example, there is no way to stop any Mercedes after 2009 from automatically applying full brakes in an impending collision. http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1210220-1-1210348-1-0-0-1210338-0-0-135-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1210220-1-1210348-1-0-0-121...
cnu 15y ago
One page print version - http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?expire=&title=The+Disorient+Express+%7C+Military+Aviation+%7C+Air+%26+Space+Magazine&urlID=29997923&action=cpt&partnerID=285322&cid=24452119&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airspacemag.com%2Fmilitary-aviation%2FThe_Disorient_Express.html%3Fc%3Dy%26page%3D2 http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?expire=&tit...
- icebraining 15y ago
  Readability version: http://www.readability.com/articles/pcjy8rt3 http://www.readability.com/articles/pcjy8rt3
crikli 15y ago
"According to a 2004 study, the average life expectancy of a non-instrument-rated pilot who flies into clouds or instrument conditions is 178 seconds." This statistic is the aviation equivalent of the "Bill Gates is going to give you $5" email forward. The study was in 1954, not 2004, and the pilots that were tested had zero instrument time (at least three hours are required to get a license now). They were put into Beechcraft Bonanzas, aircraft that none of the test subjects had time in; Bonanzas aren't tough to fly but you definitely have to transition into them, especially if you're not used to planes with more horsepower than a Cessna 172...they get ahead of you way faster. That said, if you're a VFR pilot and you knowingly proceed into Instrument Meteorological Conditions, you're probably in for some unpleasantness.
- ra 15y ago
  I've never flown a bonanza, but the 'doctor killer' [1] has quite a reputation. [1] http://aviatorcollege.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/why-is-the-“doctor-killer”-airplane-so-dangerous/ http://aviatorcollege.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/why-is-the-“d...
- js2 15y ago
  To your point - http://pastebin.com/Paj07U3f http://pastebin.com/Paj07U3f and http://www.cfidarren.com/r-178dissected.htm http://www.cfidarren.com/r-178dissected.htm
- nkurz 15y ago
  The link to the paper is given in the comments: http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/JournalPubs/180%20Degree%20Turn.pdf http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/Jour... While you are right that it is from 50 years earlier than stated, it seems like a solid study. No, it's not actually "life expectancy", but I was impressed on how well designed it was. It makes for sobering reading, but the conclusion is actually positive: with only six hours of direct experience training, they could teach people how to make a safe 180 degree turn with a high percentage of success. They explain the choice of the Bonanza, saying it was the most complex plane that a non-professional pilot could be expected to fly. The emphasis of the study was that simple training could save lives, and thus they wanted a high bar. "In sort, the assumption was made that if the subjects, none of whom had soloed a Bonanza, could master the technique in this airplane, they could master it in any single-engine airplane under 3,000 pounds gross weight." And it's not quite true that the pilots had zero instrument time at the time of test. The first lesson included a very small amount of time to familiarize themselves with the instruments, and were given a second try if they lost control within only a few seconds. How much of a difference this is from the current 3 hours, and how far short of the recommended 6, seems worthy of discussion and likely a more modern study.
learc83 15y ago
Seems like the perfect scenario for sensory augmentation. There was an article on HN a while back about attaching electrodes to the tongue to replace vision in blind subjects. One of the precursor experiments was attaching electrodes to the hand that were tied into a compass. The subjects were able to eventually feel North. A similar device could be attached to something like an altimeter or other instrument.
abrowne 15y ago
Highly recommended piece by William Langewiesche on the same subject: The Turn At the very heart of winged flight lies the banked turn, a procedure that by now seems so routine and familiar that airline passengers appreciate neither its elegance and mystery nor its dangerously delusive character. The author, a pilot, takes us up into the subject. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/langew/turn.htm http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/langew/turn.htm
samstave 15y ago
Would not a helium balloon tethered to the floor/dash solve this problem for basically no cost?
- bryanh 15y ago
  I'm not sure it would be that easy. During turns and such, it may send the balloon fluttering in odd or unreadable directions. During such an emergency, its highly unlikely that the forces acting will be so consistant.
- Sharlin 15y ago
  A helium balloon suffers from the exact same flaw as your vestibular sense: it cannot distinguish between orientation and acceleration. There is already an instrument in every cockpit that shows the true orientation of the craft: the artificial horizon.
steve8918 15y ago
On Sept 6, 2011, ANA Airlines had one of their flights flipped almost 180 degrees, because one of the pilots pressed the wrong button. The weird thing is that although passengers felt the turbulence, they didn't know they had flipped almost upside down, I guess because of the same forces that confused these pilots. It's a scary thing, and if I remember correctly, its the same thing that killed JFK Jr. http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/09/29/wrong-button-sends-ana-jet-upside-down/ http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/09/29/wrong-button-s...
pazimzadeh 15y ago
The enemy's gate is down.
scotty79 15y ago
I never knew that pilots rely on their sense of movement and orientation while piloting. It seems to me like a crazy idea. I imagined that pilot training is mostly to make people ignore the spatial feelings and stick to what they see through windows or on instruments.
mattadams 15y ago
Probably not the best thing for me to have read prior to a flight!

83 points by sajid 15y ago

Good article, but I am a bit confused about how someone in 1906 (2nd page, top paragraph) supposedly did research on vestibular effects on pilots...

tzs 15y ago
I don't see anything particularly confusing about that. The Wright brothers flew in 1903, and if we don't limit ourselves to pilots of heavier than air craft, Zeppelins started flying in 1900. It would be perfectly reasonable for a 1906 researcher to look into things that might effect pilots. That said, the article may be mistaken in the sense that the research, while applicable to pilots, appears to have actually been motivated by his work with patients suffering from dizzy spells. (BTW, he received the 1914 Nobel Prize in medicine for this research).
mechanical_fish 15y ago
This article includes a statistic so scary that I'm going to have to fight the urge to paste it twice: According to a 2004 study, the average life expectancy of a non-instrument-rated pilot who flies into clouds or instrument conditions is 178 seconds. At that rate, I'd imagine it didn't take long after the first plane flight for pilots to notice that there was a big problem with, say, closing your eyes or otherwise getting distracted while flying. Or perhaps a pilot or two tried flying into a cloud -- it's the sort of thing you'd try to do if you could, right? -- and their remaining colleagues then started wondering why flying into clouds was such a sure-fire way to die. Death sure does have a way of crystallizing such questions. The other point I'd make is that fixed-wing aircraft research probably had obvious potential military applications even in the prewar age of 1906. Perhaps this research was funded so early for much the same reason that astronaut-physiology research was well funded even before the first astronaut reached low-earth orbit.
- sliverstorm 15y ago
  Your parent is probably skeptical because in 1906 total human powered winged flight time could reasonably be measured in minutes. Europe still believed it was a hoax. Pilots didn't even have instruments let alone a cockpit. If you were a pilot, odds are your name was either Orville or Wilbur. Remember, the Wright brothers first flew in 1903. As another reply points out, it was likely blimp, balloon or some other form of aviation that spurred the research on vestibular effects.
  - 0x12 15y ago
    You forgot about Santos-Dumont, and many others besides. Europe definitely didn't believe it was a hoax, in fact there were lots of people working at attempting powered flight. That does not diminish the accomplishments of the Wright brothers in any way, but to make it seem as though Europe did not believe powered flight was possible is not true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_history The time was simply ripe, lots of the bits and pieces had been developed by those that had gone before, such as Lilienthal (who built some pretty amazing gliders) and many others.
    - sliverstorm 15y ago
      I don't mean Europe thought it couldn't be done, I meant they didn't believe it had been accomplished yet.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

biot 15y ago

I've had a similar experience while driving on a highway at night in foggy conditions. All of a sudden my car started slowing down and was rapidly losing power. I checked and it wasn't fuel, so I figured the engine was dying somehow. It wasn't until I tried gearing down that I realized I had been on a steep hill and fifth gear wasn't powerful enough. But even afterward, I couldn't sense that I was on an incline.

0x12 15y ago
I have a simple trick for that: I know the consumption of my car on a level road in 5th gear at 90 km/h, so when I'm in doubt about whether or not I'm going up, down or level I look at the fuel consumption indicator. If it is higher than 6.6L/100km then I'm going up, less is down. If you don't have a fuel consumption indicator then that will not work but lots of cars have them these days and I think using them as a level is a useful unintended application.
- mkr-hn 15y ago
  This is the first I've heard of fuel consumption indicators. What kind of car is it?
  - 0x12 15y ago
    Citroen C8/Peugeot 807 (same car, different badge). It's built into the trip computer.
  - apaprocki 15y ago
    All car computers know this even if they don't display it to you. The computer directly controls the flow in the injectors and the computer knows their flow rate (unless you swap them out, of couse).
  - dalke 15y ago
    First I saw was in a Saab 9000, around 1991.
  - caf 15y ago

3pt14159 15y ago

How are there not heads up systems that detect this? A simple "warning 5 seconds to impact with the ocean" would at least warn the pilot.

mynameishere 15y ago
Even little planes have those. What they need is a switch to tell the computer that they expect no descent whatsoever below xy000 feet, to stop it before it starts. You can hear that warning here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjaU-SKYrPk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjaU-SKYrPk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzDSq6m2zV4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzDSq6m2zV4
- apaprocki 15y ago
  I was going to suggest this in my post. A "dead-man"'s limit. A plane would lock you out and right itself it detected you dropped below some pre-defined altitude (e.g. within an acceptable angle without landing gear deployed or a greater than acceptable angle with or without landing gear deployed). Whatever altitude is necessary for the plane to right itself from the steepest descent. Something like that would make it impossible for someone to storm a cockpit and nose-dive a plane. It would need appropriate remote electronic and mechanical overrides, though to prevent possibly losing a plane if it was triggered incorrectly. But at least a plane flying level on lockout autopilot would buy some time opposed to it definitely being destroyed by the nose-dive.
7952 15y ago
But it would still require action from a pilot, who is known to be disorientated, and probably quite upset about their imminent collision with the ocean. Perhaps an alternative would be to use a belt that vibrates differently depending on the angle of the aircraft. Humans are good at integrating data without conscious thought. This has been used with compass direction on the ground to dramatically improve spatial awareness without any conscious effort http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/esp.html http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/15.04/esp.html.
scott_s 15y ago

greendot 15y ago

> According to a 2004 study, the average life expectancy of a non-instrument-rated pilot who flies into clouds or instrument conditions is 178 seconds. That is a chilling statistic. As a VFR pilot, I often wonder what would happen inside a cloud to make me react and rip my plane apart in under 3 minutes.

ispolin 15y ago
Here is the fatal scenario: http://www.aerosafe.net/page6.html http://www.aerosafe.net/page6.html As a VFR pilot, you've received basic instrument training. Remember that training, trust your instruments, and you'll make it though.
- electromagnetic 15y ago
  With an altimeter, an artificial horizon and an airspeed indicator, you would expect a VFR pilot to be able to get through any light cloud safely. Untrained, never having touched the cockpit of a plane, I can get the meaning from these instruments. Is it simply that pilots fly without these, or that they simply disregard them during flight?
  - ispolin 15y ago
    Neither. In US, your plane has to have the 6 basic instruments to be certified as airworthy by FAA. The reasons pilots die in non-visual flight conditions are twofold. As the original article pointed out, the first reason is that the sensations are so compelling that doing what the instruments tell you will feel VERY unnatural and you will keep thinking that your instruments are broken or stuck (hence you HAVE to trust your instruments). And even if you remember not to trust your instincts, you will still often unconsciously apply slight pressure to the controls. The second reason is that for every change in the plane's orientation and speed, several instruments will start moving at once. Without training it is very hard to integrate what the 6 instruments are telling you into a complete mental picture of what's going on with your airplane.
- vacri 15y ago

ak217 15y ago

I don't see this article presenting the full picture of how this problem will be addressed in the future. As ADIRUs (navigation computers) improve to better integrate GPS and inertial signals in all conditions even when all air data is lost, weather-related instrumentation failures will decrease. Next, putting a worldwide terrain map in the navigation system will let it compute whether it will hit the ground if the course is maintained - again, even when ground radar is not working. Next, heads-up displays or helmet-mounted displays with better warning systems will make sure that the pilot receives the warning. And most importantly, when the pilot feels that they don't know how to react to the warning, they will be able to push a button to let the autopilot return the plane to wings-level flight.

apaprocki 15y ago

Given the analysis of what happened in the recent Air France crash, I can't imagine why the industry does not write better software to help combat this. It seems as if the programmers writing the software are more concerned about writing valid code to fit the designed system ("the pilot signaled us to climb at exactly 40 degrees, so do it") rather than writing code that models the real world situations accurately. I found this bit of an article about the crash the most troubling: It was at this point, after autopilot turned off and they worked to change their course, that a stall warning sounded, meaning that the airplane wasn't generating enough lift. The report notes the co-pilot grabbed the controls and lifted the plane, which, according to aviation experts is contrary to normal procedure during a stall, when the nose should in fact be lowered. If pulling back on the stick should never be done when a plane is warning of a stall, why does the software allow a pilot to do it? This is surely simplifying the situation, but I can't believe we are incapable of writing better software to prevent human mistakes. I wonder what kind of hard limits do exist in the current avionics. For instance, is it possible to roll a Boeing/Airbus upside-down? If yes, why?

0x12 15y ago
What the pilot will do to keep the passenger and plane safe can't be foretold by software written in static situations on terra firma. Sensors can lie, equipment can break. Your software may have no better idea of the true situation than the pilot. In the end it is a judgment call and if you limit the ability of those judgment calls to a bunch of software then you are saying that those in a different time and place have a better idea of what to do than those with their feet in the dirt. It looks like in this case someone made the wrong judgment call. False positives in warning systems in commercial aircraft are happening with some regularity, in the end the pilot has final say.
- apaprocki 15y ago
  I think a more robust model of N completely different systems (both mechanical and electrical) to compute the same variable could be found so that the probability that it is computing a value outside of x% of the actual real value is lower than the probability that the human could make a mistake. Even if a speed indicator model in the event of pitot tube loss had a 25% margin of error, autopilot could have done the right thing or it could have possibly influenced their decision to pull back. EDIT: You can down-vote, but this is already the direction that cars have gone. For example, there is no way to stop any Mercedes after 2009 from automatically applying full brakes in an impending collision. http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1210220-1-1210348-1-0-0-1210338-0-0-135-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1210220-1-1210348-1-0-0-121...

cnu 15y ago

One page print version - http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?expire=&title=The+Disorient+Express+%7C+Military+Aviation+%7C+Air+%26+Space+Magazine&urlID=29997923&action=cpt&partnerID=285322&cid=24452119&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.airspacemag.com%2Fmilitary-aviation%2FThe_Disorient_Express.html%3Fc%3Dy%26page%3D2 http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?expire=&tit...

icebraining 15y ago
Readability version: http://www.readability.com/articles/pcjy8rt3 http://www.readability.com/articles/pcjy8rt3

crikli 15y ago

"According to a 2004 study, the average life expectancy of a non-instrument-rated pilot who flies into clouds or instrument conditions is 178 seconds." This statistic is the aviation equivalent of the "Bill Gates is going to give you $5" email forward. The study was in 1954, not 2004, and the pilots that were tested had zero instrument time (at least three hours are required to get a license now). They were put into Beechcraft Bonanzas, aircraft that none of the test subjects had time in; Bonanzas aren't tough to fly but you definitely have to transition into them, especially if you're not used to planes with more horsepower than a Cessna 172...they get ahead of you way faster. That said, if you're a VFR pilot and you knowingly proceed into Instrument Meteorological Conditions, you're probably in for some unpleasantness.

ra 15y ago
I've never flown a bonanza, but the 'doctor killer' [1] has quite a reputation. [1] http://aviatorcollege.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/why-is-the-“doctor-killer”-airplane-so-dangerous/ http://aviatorcollege.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/why-is-the-“d...
js2 15y ago
To your point - http://pastebin.com/Paj07U3f http://pastebin.com/Paj07U3f and http://www.cfidarren.com/r-178dissected.htm http://www.cfidarren.com/r-178dissected.htm
nkurz 15y ago
The link to the paper is given in the comments: http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/JournalPubs/180%20Degree%20Turn.pdf http://www.humanfactors.uiuc.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/Jour... While you are right that it is from 50 years earlier than stated, it seems like a solid study. No, it's not actually "life expectancy", but I was impressed on how well designed it was. It makes for sobering reading, but the conclusion is actually positive: with only six hours of direct experience training, they could teach people how to make a safe 180 degree turn with a high percentage of success. They explain the choice of the Bonanza, saying it was the most complex plane that a non-professional pilot could be expected to fly. The emphasis of the study was that simple training could save lives, and thus they wanted a high bar. "In sort, the assumption was made that if the subjects, none of whom had soloed a Bonanza, could master the technique in this airplane, they could master it in any single-engine airplane under 3,000 pounds gross weight." And it's not quite true that the pilots had zero instrument time at the time of test. The first lesson included a very small amount of time to familiarize themselves with the instruments, and were given a second try if they lost control within only a few seconds. How much of a difference this is from the current 3 hours, and how far short of the recommended 6, seems worthy of discussion and likely a more modern study.

learc83 15y ago

Seems like the perfect scenario for sensory augmentation. There was an article on HN a while back about attaching electrodes to the tongue to replace vision in blind subjects. One of the precursor experiments was attaching electrodes to the hand that were tied into a compass. The subjects were able to eventually feel North. A similar device could be attached to something like an altimeter or other instrument.

abrowne 15y ago

Highly recommended piece by William Langewiesche on the same subject: The Turn At the very heart of winged flight lies the banked turn, a procedure that by now seems so routine and familiar that airline passengers appreciate neither its elegance and mystery nor its dangerously delusive character. The author, a pilot, takes us up into the subject. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/langew/turn.htm http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/unbound/langew/turn.htm

samstave 15y ago

Would not a helium balloon tethered to the floor/dash solve this problem for basically no cost?

bryanh 15y ago
I'm not sure it would be that easy. During turns and such, it may send the balloon fluttering in odd or unreadable directions. During such an emergency, its highly unlikely that the forces acting will be so consistant.
Sharlin 15y ago
A helium balloon suffers from the exact same flaw as your vestibular sense: it cannot distinguish between orientation and acceleration. There is already an instrument in every cockpit that shows the true orientation of the craft: the artificial horizon.

steve8918 15y ago

On Sept 6, 2011, ANA Airlines had one of their flights flipped almost 180 degrees, because one of the pilots pressed the wrong button. The weird thing is that although passengers felt the turbulence, they didn't know they had flipped almost upside down, I guess because of the same forces that confused these pilots. It's a scary thing, and if I remember correctly, its the same thing that killed JFK Jr. http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/09/29/wrong-button-sends-ana-jet-upside-down/ http://blogs.wsj.com/japanrealtime/2011/09/29/wrong-button-s...

pazimzadeh 15y ago

The enemy's gate is down.

scotty79 15y ago

I never knew that pilots rely on their sense of movement and orientation while piloting. It seems to me like a crazy idea. I imagined that pilot training is mostly to make people ignore the spatial feelings and stick to what they see through windows or on instruments.

mattadams 15y ago

Probably not the best thing for me to have read prior to a flight!