8 ms·

We should also remember that it was pilot error that doomed Air France flight 447. That being said, remotely piloting a plane doesn't give the feedback that sit

by Evolved 12y ago

We should also remember that it was pilot error that doomed Air France flight 447. That being said, remotely piloting a plane doesn't give the feedback that sitting in the captain's seat does and although planes may not need pilots to take off and land in the near future, a pilot (or two) will still be on board if not to at least reassure the passengers but also in the case of uncertainties that software may not be able to account for. Edit: Can anyone tell me about gyroscopes in the plane and why there weren't any or did they cease function? Would they have helped if they somehow gave indications that the plane was in fact not stalling? From what the data showed, the air speed sensors (pitot tubes) clogged with ice and triggered a stall alarm so the pilot reacted by pulling up but since the plane was actually level but the alarm reported a stall due to lack of airspeed reardings from the sensors it made the situation worse [1]. [1] http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/what-really-happened-aboard-air-france-447-6611877-2 http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/aviation/crashes/...

lsh123 12y ago
In the Air France 447 case, the pilot error came after the automation failed due to unreliable / wrong airspeed indication. This is exactly the scenario why we need a human in the control loop: to handle unexpected and unpredictable failures. Unfortunately the pilots of Air France 447 had not been able to handle the situation either.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  Oh come on the pilots did not realize they were stalling. Thats how incompetent they were.
  - sliverstorm 12y ago
    His point is that while the pilots failed, they were only called upon because the autopilot had already failed. In other words, Air France 447 is not evidence that autopilot is the superior choice.
    - lsh123 12y ago
      Thanks for the longer explanation of my point :)
  - parfe 12y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJzg6W2f7Ng#t=1975 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJzg6W2f7Ng#t=1975 The sad thing is you can hear the cockpit alarm say STALL STALL STALL and the pilots never even acknowledge it.
    - ekianjo 12y ago
      Thanks thats exactly what i was refering to. And its not the first time air france pilots fail miserably in emergency situations.
  - lsh123 12y ago
    I don't disagree there was a pilot error. However, this error came after automation failed. And I wouldn't call pilots incompetent. I am an instrument rated pilot myself and flying on instruments in a lousy weather at night is hard by itself. Add an unexpected and unexplained failure on top of it and you have a situation that can simply "overload" your brain. There are good lessons from this tragedy and Air France adjusted its training program almost immediately after the crash details have been uncovered.
  - Evolved 12y ago
    I don't think it is that the pilots did or did not realize the stall. The stall alarm went off 75 times. The problem was they were not aware of their pitch for some reason. They must have thought they were heading towards the ocean due to the stall alarm combined with seeing very low air speed reports from the sensors when in fact it was the opposite as the airspeed was fine but the junior pilot kept pulling back on the stick which induced and worsened the ascending stall. This is why I was asking about gyroscopes in the planes in enough locations to accurately tell a pilot "hey, I know your airspeed reads very low and the stall alarm is going off but you're not stalling. Lock the throttles and hold the plane level until the airspeed returns."
    - lsh123 12y ago
      It is called "attitude indicator" and there are multiple AIs installed on larger planes. The problem is that a pilot need to determine what exactly failed: either airspeed indicator, or horoscopes, or both, or something else entirely.
    - Evolved 12y ago
      Ish123, I can't reply to your comment but you're exactly right[1] and I can't help but wonder if pilots are trained this way, someone like me (I have never flown any kind of plane my entire life) and you came to this conclusion then why did they react the way they did? The whole situation just seems so simply avoidable. Then again, I'm not flying a huge plane with hundreds of people on it in darkness with pounding thunder/rain/lightning and all sorts of gizmos blinking and making noise at me. It almost seems like something else should be added to the training curriculum and routinely tested that hardens pilots nerves and prepares them for some of the most stressful situations they could ever encounter such as before grunts go off to combat. [1]http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424125/flight-447s-fatal-attitude-problem/ http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424125/flight-447s-fata...
      - lsh123 12y ago
        Handling emergencies is a big part of initial and recurring training for pilots. I can't speculate "why" pilots didn't handle the situation the right way but based on the Air France response to this crash I believe the main cause is too much reliance on automation and lack of actual hand-flying. Pilots found themselves way out of their comfort zone and it impacted their ability to make good decisions. If you are interested to learn about "too much automation" problem there is a very good (and funny) talk given 15+ years ago: http://vimeo.com/64502012 http://vimeo.com/64502012

by Evolved 12y ago

lsh123 12y ago

In the Air France 447 case, the pilot error came after the automation failed due to unreliable / wrong airspeed indication. This is exactly the scenario why we need a human in the control loop: to handle unexpected and unpredictable failures. Unfortunately the pilots of Air France 447 had not been able to handle the situation either.

ekianjo 12y ago
Oh come on the pilots did not realize they were stalling. Thats how incompetent they were.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  His point is that while the pilots failed, they were only called upon because the autopilot had already failed. In other words, Air France 447 is not evidence that autopilot is the superior choice.
  - lsh123 12y ago
    Thanks for the longer explanation of my point :)
- parfe 12y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJzg6W2f7Ng#t=1975 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJzg6W2f7Ng#t=1975 The sad thing is you can hear the cockpit alarm say STALL STALL STALL and the pilots never even acknowledge it.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    Thanks thats exactly what i was refering to. And its not the first time air france pilots fail miserably in emergency situations.
- lsh123 12y ago
  I don't disagree there was a pilot error. However, this error came after automation failed. And I wouldn't call pilots incompetent. I am an instrument rated pilot myself and flying on instruments in a lousy weather at night is hard by itself. Add an unexpected and unexplained failure on top of it and you have a situation that can simply "overload" your brain. There are good lessons from this tragedy and Air France adjusted its training program almost immediately after the crash details have been uncovered.
- Evolved 12y ago
  I don't think it is that the pilots did or did not realize the stall. The stall alarm went off 75 times. The problem was they were not aware of their pitch for some reason. They must have thought they were heading towards the ocean due to the stall alarm combined with seeing very low air speed reports from the sensors when in fact it was the opposite as the airspeed was fine but the junior pilot kept pulling back on the stick which induced and worsened the ascending stall. This is why I was asking about gyroscopes in the planes in enough locations to accurately tell a pilot "hey, I know your airspeed reads very low and the stall alarm is going off but you're not stalling. Lock the throttles and hold the plane level until the airspeed returns."
  - lsh123 12y ago
    It is called "attitude indicator" and there are multiple AIs installed on larger planes. The problem is that a pilot need to determine what exactly failed: either airspeed indicator, or horoscopes, or both, or something else entirely.
  - Evolved 12y ago
    Ish123, I can't reply to your comment but you're exactly right[1] and I can't help but wonder if pilots are trained this way, someone like me (I have never flown any kind of plane my entire life) and you came to this conclusion then why did they react the way they did? The whole situation just seems so simply avoidable. Then again, I'm not flying a huge plane with hundreds of people on it in darkness with pounding thunder/rain/lightning and all sorts of gizmos blinking and making noise at me. It almost seems like something else should be added to the training curriculum and routinely tested that hardens pilots nerves and prepares them for some of the most stressful situations they could ever encounter such as before grunts go off to combat. [1]http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424125/flight-447s-fatal-attitude-problem/ http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424125/flight-447s-fata...
    - lsh123 12y ago
      Handling emergencies is a big part of initial and recurring training for pilots. I can't speculate "why" pilots didn't handle the situation the right way but based on the Air France response to this crash I believe the main cause is too much reliance on automation and lack of actual hand-flying. Pilots found themselves way out of their comfort zone and it impacted their ability to make good decisions. If you are interested to learn about "too much automation" problem there is a very good (and funny) talk given 15+ years ago: http://vimeo.com/64502012 http://vimeo.com/64502012