01-12-2016, 04:05 PM
Interesting.
Just read it.
An "off-the-cuff" comment.
The common denominator, in my view, is that when shit happens, on total glass ships, both system managers (let's be honest - they are not aviators any more) up-front, become "individually focused" on mentally trying to figure out what is wrong.
They have to be "system centric" in their thinking, simply because that is the nature of the beast they are dealing with, especially when it goes nuts.
As a result, each one has to individually think independently to try to get on top of the problem, in their own head, first, "before" they can offer any "contribution' to the "other", who may or may not have yet got his own head around the problem.
If not, he will not be open to "inputs" that distract his thoughts, and even if he has "caught up", he still may not agree.
In short, the problem with the way the systems are designed and configured, is that they "force" each individual to "respond to the system(s)" first and foremost.
Thus, in a crisis, the crew "team" is instantly destroyed, right at the beginning.
Individually, they may, or may not, eventually sus-the-problem, but even if or when they do, the evidence of AF447 and QZ8501 (and the Air NZ test flight) clearly shows that they do not then adequately relay that to the other, if at all, let alone "act together".
Independent, uncoordinated action (or inaction) equals disaster.
In a computerised aeroplane, you can't have one guy using the keyboard, control-shifting and tabbing through the menu bar etc, whilst the other guy is simultaneously trying to do his own thing by useing the mouse !
On reflection, I suppose this is really the best argument for single pilot ops in computerised aircraft ever written !
The bean-counters will love it !
It is a global problem that will not go away.
Once upon a time, the man was the master of the machine. Not today. The machines are now the grand masters of the men.
Just read it.
An "off-the-cuff" comment.
The common denominator, in my view, is that when shit happens, on total glass ships, both system managers (let's be honest - they are not aviators any more) up-front, become "individually focused" on mentally trying to figure out what is wrong.
They have to be "system centric" in their thinking, simply because that is the nature of the beast they are dealing with, especially when it goes nuts.
As a result, each one has to individually think independently to try to get on top of the problem, in their own head, first, "before" they can offer any "contribution' to the "other", who may or may not have yet got his own head around the problem.
If not, he will not be open to "inputs" that distract his thoughts, and even if he has "caught up", he still may not agree.
In short, the problem with the way the systems are designed and configured, is that they "force" each individual to "respond to the system(s)" first and foremost.
Thus, in a crisis, the crew "team" is instantly destroyed, right at the beginning.
Individually, they may, or may not, eventually sus-the-problem, but even if or when they do, the evidence of AF447 and QZ8501 (and the Air NZ test flight) clearly shows that they do not then adequately relay that to the other, if at all, let alone "act together".
Independent, uncoordinated action (or inaction) equals disaster.
In a computerised aeroplane, you can't have one guy using the keyboard, control-shifting and tabbing through the menu bar etc, whilst the other guy is simultaneously trying to do his own thing by useing the mouse !
On reflection, I suppose this is really the best argument for single pilot ops in computerised aircraft ever written !
The bean-counters will love it !
It is a global problem that will not go away.
Once upon a time, the man was the master of the machine. Not today. The machines are now the grand masters of the men.