LM is closing down part of training system activities

[Guest]

 

 

 That is CRAZY to even consider a pilotless civilian airliner.

 

Why is that crazy?  Do you know each and every pilot/crew that flies - why would they be more trust worthy than an automated system?  What if the pilot has become a drunk, drug addict, family problems, hiding a physical illness so as to keep his/her job?  What if the crew don't get along with each other?  All bad for your safety.

 

70% airline crashes/incidents are from pilot error (those are NTSB numbers).  Pilots have good days and bad days for any number of reasons - just part of being human.  Automated systems aren't affected by those limitations ... they maybe affected by human programming errors but that's why we test, the more critical a system, the more it's tested.

 

But if you want to look at statistics and automation: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/global-airline-accident-and-safety-review-for-2010-351782/

 

Quote from that article:

 

 

 

Inadequate crew knowledge of automated systems was a factor in more than 40% of accidents and 30% of serious airline incidents, Abbott says. She catalogues evidence of disharmony between crews and their highly automated aircraft, based on detailed studies of accident and incident data and line operation safety audits between 2001 and 2009, so the research is recent and involves real operations. 

 

It's not the automated systems fault, it's the crews fault.

[z06z33 763]

E6BAV8R, on 14 Nov 2013 - 2:00 PM, said:E6BAV8R, on 14 Nov 2013 - 2:00 PM, said:E6BAV8R, on 14 Nov 2013 - 2:00 PM, said:E6BAV8R, on 14 Nov 2013 - 2:00 PM, said:E6BAV8R, on 14 Nov 2013 - 2:00 PM, said:E6BAV8R, on 14 Nov 2013 - 2:00 PM, said:

And what about the hundreds of thousands of flights that arrive every day without a hitch?

 

So you're now attributing using the autopilot at cruise to the fact that the particular Air France crew in question used the autopilot from 200 ft. on departure all the way to landing, and they therefore used the autopilot too much and that was the leading contribution to the crash?

 

The Air France crew in that accident most likely did what they were probably taught.  The problem with flying modern airliners is that most people are taught incorrectly in FSTDs because of the limited envelope an FSTD offers.  What about CFIT and LOC-I?  You want to blame those on autopilot usage too

Maybe if they had hand flown the plane more they would have realised they were in a stall. Why are you so against hand flying a plane? My grandfather was a barnstormer in the 20's he told my dad and my dad told me to strap the plane to your A## and fly it not let it fly you. Lets look at the A320 that was landed in the Hudson no autopilot could have done that and I bet to have had that good of a feel for the plane he hand flew the A320 quite often.Knowing systems is great but when the shiz hits the fan it comes down to one thing and one thing alone being able to feel the plane what its doing and what its going to do its hard to describe in words but most RW pilots will know what I'm talking about.

 

 

As for alot of accidents being blamed on the pilots somtimes the NTSB does that to keep the public from fearing a particular plane hurting not only the airline but the builder of the plane aswell. IE dead men don't talk.

[realkewl 3]

 

 

PS: Drones / UAV's /RPV's do not need to go away. They do have their uses.

 

FAA forecast that they'll be around 7500 drones in our airspace within five years....WOW that's a lot. You can check out their road map for them here: http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/uas/

 

-Ray

[HansRoaming 73]

There is a military saying that goes 'train like you fight, fight like you train'.

 

Humans are good at the unexpected and a useful component in the system mix. Until autopilots can surpass human intelligence then they won't be able to handle unexpected situations as well.

[raymar 969]

Wow, this topic sure took a left turn along the way, the topic is LM cutting back on personnel in the Drones section.

 

Ray

[HiFlyer 9,358]

There is a military saying that goes 'train like you fight, fight like you train'.

Humans are good at the unexpected and a useful component in the system mix. Until autopilots can surpass human intelligence then they won't be able to handle unexpected situations as well.

The first time a fully automated passenger plane lost its mind and crashed, that would be the end of that. No amount of explanation of statistics and probabilities would stop the public and politicians from nuking the whole concept from orbit.

 

Not to even mention hackers.......

 

It would be the tubeliner version of the Hindenburg as far as public reaction went.

[E6BAV8R 88]

Maybe if they had hand flown the plane more they would have realised they were in a stall. Why are you so against hand flying a plane? My grandfather was a barnstormer in the 20's he told my dad and my dad told me to strap the plane to your A## and fly it not let it fly you. Lets look at the A320 that was landed in the Hudson no autopilot could have done that and I bet to have had that good of a feel for the plane he hand flew the A320 quite often.Knowing systems is great but when the shiz hits the fan it comes down to one thing and one thing alone being able to feel the plane what its doing and what its going to do its hard to describe in words but most RW pilots will know what I'm talking about.

I'm not against hand flying the airplane, but making the assumption and generalization that using the autopilot is a root cause of many accidents is rather ignorant when you aren't a pilot nor have any idea as to the pilots background, experience, training background, qualification or the specific airline SOP.  You're just making brash assumptions to substantiate what you think may or may not be true.

 

I'll just leave it at that.

 

As for alot of accidents being blamed on the pilots somtimes the NTSB does that to keep the public from fearing a particular plane hurting not only the airline but the builder of the plane aswell. IE dead men don't talk.

 

That's quite the conspiracy theory you have going on there.  You happen to know any NTSB investigators or ever been a part of an aircraft investigation?  The NTSB has no binding ties to manufacturers, operators or the FAA.  Their only job is to protect the flying public.

[z06z33 763]

E6BAV8R, on 14 Nov 2013 - 5:22 PM, said:E6BAV8R, on 14 Nov 2013 - 5:22 PM, said:

I'm not against hand flying the airplane, but making the assumption and generalization that using the autopilot is a root cause of many accidents is rather ignorant when you aren't a pilot nor have any idea as to the pilots background, experience, training background, qualification or the specific airline SOP.  You're just making brash assumptions to substantiate what you think may or may not be true.

 

I'll just leave it at that.

 

 

That's quite the conspiracy theory you have going on there.  You happen to know any NTSB investigators or ever been a part of an aircraft investigation?

I am a pilot actually! By hand flying a plane you gain experience flying, by pushing a button you gain experience pushing a button which don't help that much in an emergency to be honest. As for SOP's the only time you have to use the autopilot is for a Cat III approach the rest of its left up to the PIC as far as I know. To gain experience flying you actually have to fly the plane not watch the auto pilot do it. In the RW I hand fly most of the time. In the sim I hand fly to cruise on long flights and hand fly descent, On short flights in the NGX like KLAX to KLAS I hand fly the whole way. I paid $70 to fly a 737 sim not watch the AP have all the fun. In the RW I fly off sectionals and use the GPS as a backup only doing this keeps your attention where it should be on flying the plane and I always know where Im at in case that GPS fails unlike alot of folks who don't think that the GPS will ever fail.

 

Also who's easier to blame two or three dead pilots or a multi billion dollar company? I know alot of pilots who feel the same way about the NTSB. I'm not saying pilots don't make mistakes but pilots aren't always to blame either.

[mgh 89]

Some 4000 people are likely to lose their jobs and this community squabbles about hand-flying. Some community!

[alainneedle1 97]

+1 mgh

[1st fltsimguy 466]

I think that this topic has been hijacked.

[z06z33 763]

Some 4000 people are likely to lose their jobs and this community squabbles about hand-flying. Some community!

Your right I got way off topic on this one and I'm not quite sure how my apologies guys. I feel bad go those folks loosing their jobs what makes it worse is its right around the holidays.

[LAdamson 240]

I am a pilot actually! By hand flying a plane you gain experience flying, by pushing a button you gain experience pushing a button which don't help that much in an emergency to be honest. As for SOP's the only time you have to use the autopilot is for a Cat III approach the rest of its left up to the PIC as far as I know. To gain experience flying you actually have to fly the plane not watch the auto pilot do it. In the RW I hand fly most of the time. In the sim I hand fly to cruise on long flights and hand fly descent, On short flights in the NGX like KLAX to KLAS I hand fly the whole way. I paid $70 to fly a 737 sim not watch the AP have all the fun.In the RW I fly off sectionals and use the GPS as a backup only doing this keeps your attention where it should be on flying the plane and I always know where Im at in case that GPS fails unlike alot of folks who don't think that the GPS will ever fail.

 

Also who's easier to blame two or three dead pilots or a multi billion dollar company? I know alot of pilots who feel the same way about the NTSB. I'm not saying pilots don't make mistakes but pilots aren't always to blame either.

I've had this intense interest in aircraft navigation, ever since a United Airlines DC-8 crashed into the mountain above my home in 1977. Since I took my first flight lesson in 1968, I'm always open to better navigation systems as technology advances. I am a true GPS advocate. I started using early aviation moving map GPSs in 1993. I've spent many years since then, documenting actual aircraft accident sites, and the benefits of GPS. I wouldn't ever underestimate the value of GPS, or just casually consider it as a backup. It has a great potential for keeping people alive, and airplanes in one piece. I've also kept track of GPS reliability from many pilots I know, as well as my own GPS experience for the last 20 years. It's extremely reliable. I personally know people who install glass systems, as well as people who test new navigation hardware. They can easily tell you about reliability, versus the older nav radios. Once again, GPS is very, very reliable, and accuracy can't be beat!

 

 

In the meantime, I flew mountain country for many years. I also pre-plan with a sectional, and kept it on a kneeboard. However, the plan was always loaded into my Garmin moving map GPS. I would usually begin with a computer generated route, that would include VORs. I would then make changes for more direct routing, and points of interest. My GPS had an XM weather display. This became a "must have", and once again, extremely valuable. It beats the old methods by miles. The GPS was also linked to the aircraft's fuel computer. There is amazing accuracy here, which eliminated a lot of estimating and guessing. Measured fuel consumption was always within 1/2 gallon.

 

Hand flying, yes. But I also had a two-axis auto-pilot. I could care less about hand flying for four or five hundred miles in a small GA airplane. My airplane was semi-aerobatic. I do know how to hand fly. In the meantime, I'd never even consider boarding a pilotless airliner. I don't believe it will ever happen, as long as air molecules support the wings. When anti-gravity paint is perfected.....perhaps.

 

edit: P.S. --- looks like an A-26 in your avatar. That's one of my favorite two engine piston planes. A few friends of mine, are re-building one. They just sent out the engines for a complete overhaul. And, I guess I pulled this thread more off track.

[speedbird034 14]

Yea they do but mark my word they will remove pilots from the cockpit one day. My dad refused to turn the autopilot on till he was at cruise when he flew 747s for United and Ill do the same when I get to the airlines. Turning the AP on at 200 feet isn't very smart.

 

My sense is that it will be a very long time, beyond my lifetime for sure and quite possibly yours, before this country will permit a "pilotless" or remote operated passenger aircraft.  Just an opinion, nothing more.

 

There are certain situations in which the use of an autopilot at low altitudes is a very good idea.  RNAV SIDS and STARS in certain dense traffic areas are areas two examples in which engaging an autopilot as soon as possible can be a good idea. I can't give an opinion about 200 feet, but in certain situations I have seen the autopilot engaged at 400ft AGL and for good reason.

 

I therefore tend not to make sweeping statements about anything anymore, because, frankly, I haven't seen it all, nor do I know everything.  Just be careful, and be safe.

[Tom Allensworth 1,532]

Let's get this back on topic folks, or we'll prune everything but the On-Topic posts. Those of you interested in discussing drones ad nauseam, please create another topic and knock yourselves out.

 

As for the LMOC layoffs, yes, the number is at least 4,000 with facilities in CA, OH, and elsewhere being shut down. From my own career in Northrop Grumman, I know a lot of folks in the Dayton facility. All of them will probably be gone. They were involved in international submarine combat management systems and had a lot of folks deployed overseas. Many in the procurement and field engineering side of the house are good friends. What a hell of way to enter the Christmas season. Northrop did the exact same to many in our organization in November 2011. I have had earlier word with the LMOC P3D team that they didn't think they were at risk. That was about a month ago however. Time will tell.