tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9133703253863123050.post3288704248261124151..comments2024-02-21T03:48:52.674-05:00Comments on Flying Lessons: Much to Learn from Lucky LandingsChristine Negronihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15190247339367487575noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9133703253863123050.post-24721626791096316912011-02-26T00:02:54.648-05:002011-02-26T00:02:54.648-05:00Christine
Here's where you absolutely nailed ...Christine<br /><br />Here's where you absolutely nailed the issue. "That all this high-technology may sometimes err is as certain as the fallibility of low-tech humans." The technology may malfunction so thats why there are pilots. Pilots are human so they also may malfunction or err. It is that reality necessitates another human be introduced into the system. Those three elements, in combination, allow for the safe operation that airline customers have every right to expect.<br /><br />The machine will always be the machine where failure IS an unfortunate option. That is exactly why humans are still a mandatory element on the flight decks of passenger aircraft. A qualified pilot must always be capable of flying the airplane when the automation or technology fails. It is exactly what they are trained to do. The more common breakdown in the system is when the crew disengages from the machine. Whereas a machine may fail, it does not lose interest, become bored, get fatigued or become distracted.<br /><br />On today's highly automated flight deck the most common breakdown in the system is a function of the humanity of the pilots. Technology, if properly programmed and applied will either carry out its task or malfunction. Pilots on the other hand may make a mistake or error, but additionally they can perform only a portion of their tasks or lose situational awareness or fail to notice a critical parameter.<br /><br />At least as many airplanes have been lost by human failures as have been saved by pilot action. The trick is to minimize the human's failures while exploiting their incredible capabilities for situational assessment, evaluation and action.<br /><br />It was humans that saved many lives by landing in a river. It was humans that unintentionally flew beyond their destination by 150 miles. As this juxtaposition shows, humans make great managers and lousy monitors. Automation is great at monitoring and performance of specific tasks, but it is binary and therefore lousy when situational awareness and decision making is what's needed.<br /><br />Pilots and technology need to work together in synergistic harmony, not try to take on responsibilities the other does much better. <br /><br />Ray Bradbury's Captain James T. Kirk never flew the Starship Enterprise.<br /><br />Flying the Backside http://web.me.com/jblaszczakJ. Blaszczakchristine here's where you absolutely nailed the issue. "that all this high-technology may sometimes err is as certain as the fallibility of low-tech humans." the technology may malfunction so thats why there are pilots. pilots are human so they also may malfunction or err. it is that reality necessitates another human be introduced into the system. those three elements, in combination, allow for the safe operation that airline customers have every right to expect. the machine will always be the machine where failure is an unfortunate option. that is exactly why humans are still a mandatory element on the flight decks of passenger aircraft. a qualified pilot must always be capable of flying the airplane when the automation or technology fails. it is exactly what they are trained to do. the more common breakdown in the system is when the crew disengages from the machine. whereas a machine may fail, it does not lose interest, become bored, get fatigued or become distracted. on today's highly automated flight deck the most common breakdown in the system is a function of the humanity of the pilots. technology, if properly programmed and applied will either carry out its task or malfunction. pilots on the other hand may make a mistake or error, but additionally they can perform only a portion of their tasks or lose situational awareness or fail to notice a critical parameter. at least as many airplanes have been lost by human failures as have been saved by pilot action. the trick is to minimize the human's failures while exploiting their incredible capabilities for situational assessment, evaluation and action. it was humans that saved many lives by landing in a river. it was humans that unintentionally flew beyond their destination by 150 miles. as this juxtaposition shows, humans make great managers and lousy monitors. automation is great at monitoring and performance of specific tasks, but it is binary and therefore lousy when situational awareness and decision making is what's needed. pilots and technology need to work together in synergistic harmony, not try to take on responsibilities the other does much better. ray bradbury's captain james t. kirk never flew the starship enterprise. flying thttp://web.me.com/jblaszczaknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9133703253863123050.post-6011451768206628092011-02-24T01:29:17.132-05:002011-02-24T01:29:17.132-05:00Indeed. Thank you for an incisive post, Christine....Indeed. Thank you for an incisive post, Christine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com