The perils of flying a computer.

[Richard McDonald Woods 168]

Well said, Smiffy!

[Jetstream96 20]

Do airbus pilots really need to enter coordinates manually? If that's true then the problem is FMGS being not automated enough.

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

Well that was not the reaction I was expecting.

 

We have had suggestions that Asians cant fly that were barely challenged and hints that the death penalty might be the appropriate for procedural errors. The common theme being that others were at fault and must be blamed. You will forgive me for stating that I hope none of you are commercial pilots. What I was hoping for was the recognition that we all make mistakes and it is up to us to expect them, recognize them and correct them. If you want to identify fault or cause, it should only be so that procedures can be improved to reduce repetition. Leave the blame for lawyers and ambulance chasers.

look at my signature, that will tell you enough about my credentials.

 

having said that, no one ever said mistakes are only punishable by death. however, this gross negligence in cross checking and literally not being able to recognize such a gross error is a big issue. that's just bad piloting. Plain and simple. as I said before, if they would have caught this mistake on the ground, I would have a completely different outlook on it. more so to the tune of fill out an ASAP and be done with it.

 

that didn't happen though. they never recognized the error until they where in cruise. It's a mistake that is can be forgiven for sure. however, it's unacceptable that they let it get that far.

 

like I said, a gate return is nothing compared to an air return.

 

look ant other accidents and I guarantee you that all accidents can be "forgiven," however that doesn't mean they should have ever happened in the first place. Comair 5191 comes to mind...

 

the crew made antecedents honest mistake and they lined up on the wrong runway. they never crosschecked it and look what happened. it's so sad that people lost their lives. Knowing what it's like to fly that early and be under time constraints like that, I most definitely

forgive the crew. however, it should have never never happened.

 

don't come on here saying that you hope people aren't commercial pilots just because they have a different opinion than you do. they may know more about what they are talking about and about the situation than you do.

[ClearedtoLand 149]

I'm just wondering whether, when the pilot input the coordinates, he was relying on the computer to inform him if he had made a mistake. Put another way, did the pilot interpret the absence of any obvious warning of error to be a confirmation that his entry was correct?

 

That goes beyond mere CRM and would point towards areas of improvement in crew and computer interaction.

 

I don't have any experience in Airbus automated flight systems, but I once made a similar mistake when setting up the FMC on the 737NGX and the FMC returned a message to alert me to the discrepancy between where I told the plane it was and where its onboard GPS system indicated it really was. I quickly rectified the error. I would be surprised if the Airbus systems don't have a similar function. If it does, then it would be worth looking at the way in which it alerts the crew of an input error. If it doesn't have a similar warning system in place, well ...

 

I would go beyond that and suggest that when it comes to designing aircraft flight computers, it would be worth drawing on the experience of cognitive scientists. It has only been over the last forty years that psychology has started to piece together how badly even a fully functional brain operates, and the obvious risks that this poses for our behaviour. And to put that into perspective, the 747 has been flying for longer than we have understood the way in which our minds find creative ways to malfunction in the name of evolutionary expedience.

 

I would say that with SOP's and experience comes certainty, and with certainty comes a reluctance to question our actions, this is a scientifically proven fact. And though obviously, most pilots get this right most of the time, a recognition of the limitations of the human mind, and the accompanying penchant, for making seemingly incomprehensible mistakes, would help us to design systems that take into consideration very real human limitations like seeing what we want to see, even when what we claim to have seen is not what was actually there, such as one number in a long sequence being out of place.

 

There is no amount of training in procedures or experience in flying which can counteract the mind's tendency for taking short cuts with devastating consequences, but a recognition of this fact about the mind and incorporating it into how flight computers interact with pilots can help us design systems which provide a check on mental inefficiency.

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

double post...

[kevinh 409]

Do airbus pilots really need to enter coordinates manually? If that's true then the problem is FMGS being not automated enough.

No, the IRS takes it's initial alignment position from the departure airport. But then the crew adjust this lat/long for the exact gate position. They can use slew keys but in this case the Captain entered the data from the keypad, incorrectly. The aircraft didn't have a software mod that checks for sensible inputs, but since the incident all Air Asia planes have been updated.

 

You do have to manually enter the alignment position in a Boeing, though of course you can copy last position or current GPS position to the scratchpad to help you. But for precise alignment you need to enter the gate position.

 

 

 

that didn't happen though. they never recognized the error until they where in cruise. It's a mistake that is can be forgiven for sure. however, it's unacceptable that they let it get that far.

 

like I said, a gate return is nothing compared to an air return.

According to the linked report they recognised the problem as soon as the aircraft took off.

 

A gate return is less of an issue than an air return, but a safe air return is still far better than the alternative of attempting to continue unsafely.

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

No, the IRS takes it's initial alignment position from the departure airport. But then the crew adjust this lat/long for the exact gate position. They can use slew keys but in this case the Captain entered the data from the keypad, incorrectly. The aircraft didn't have a software mod that checks for sensible inputs, but since the incident all Air Asia planes have been updated.

 

You do have to manually enter the alignment position in a Boeing, though of course you can copy last position or current GPS position to the scratchpad to help you. But for precise alignment you need to enter the gate position.

 

 

 

According to the linked report they recognised the problem as soon as the aircraft took off.

 

A gate return is less of an issue than an air return, but a safe air return is still far better than the alternative of attempting to continue unsafely.

I applaud you for giving the crew the benefit of the doubt. However, the article also states that they didn't crosschecked it and that the airplane was trying to tell them something; but they didn't bother to investigate. That right there is the problem. they didn't do their due diligence to ensure the outcome of the flight would not be in question.

 

having said that, I agree with you that a safe air return is better than just continuing. Although, this air return should have never had to happen in the first place.

 

This incident will be a great tool for annual recurrent training at said carrier. Other than that, I don't see anything else coming of this. The crew shouldn't be terminated, just some extra training in CRM.

[kevinh 409]

I applaud you for giving the crew the benefit of the doubt. However, the article also states that they didn't crosschecked it and that the airplane was trying to tell them something; but they didn't bother to investigate. That right there is the problem. they didn't do their due diligence to ensure the outcome of the flight would not be in question.

 

having said that, I agree with you that a safe air return is better than just continuing. Although, this air return should have never had to happen in the first place.

 

This incident will be a great tool for annual recurrent training at said carrier. Other than that, I don't see anything else coming of this.

Where did I give the crew the benefit of the doubt? I was just correcting what you said about the crew getting to cruise before they noticed the problem. Of course the error should have been caught on the ground. Has anyone said otherwise?

 

The crew shouldn't be terminated, just some extra training in CRM.

Surely an unacceptable error requires more action, compared to an acceptable error?

[ahsmatt7 1,199]

Where did I give the crew the benefit of the doubt? I was just correcting what you said about the crew getting to cruise before they noticed the problem. Of course the error should have been caught on the ground. Has anyone said otherwise?

 

 

Surely an unacceptable error requires more action, compared to an acceptable error?

Why Bait me in this fashion? what's the point?

[Jetstream96 20]

No, the IRS takes it's initial alignment position from the departure airport. But then the crew adjust this lat/long for the exact gate position. They can use slew keys but in this case the Captain entered the data from the keypad, incorrectly. The aircraft didn't have a software mod that checks for sensible inputs, but since the incident all Air Asia planes have been updated.

 

You do have to manually enter the alignment position in a Boeing, though of course you can copy last position or current GPS position to the scratchpad to help you. But for precise alignment you need to enter the gate position.

 

 

According to the linked report they recognised the problem as soon as the aircraft took off.

 

A gate return is less of an issue than an air return, but a safe air return is still far better than the alternative of attempting to continue unsafely.

Thanks, that makes sense now. I only knew that on 737 you can enter the airport and gate number to get the position from navigation database. 

 

It's very surprising that none of the pilots noticed the issue on the ground. With the wrong input I assume the routes won't even show up on ND, unless it's in plan mode.