Aircrews `to blame' for most crashes

[Dave Kearton]

Quoting without comment, I guess they'll come later


Cheers


Dave Kearton



http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6774050%255E911,00.html







By ANDREA STYLIANOU
19jul03
THE actions of aircrew may be the major factor in most aircraft accidents,
research shows.

The crew's actions in the technological surrounds of the cockpit and the
impact of external factors such as flying conditions have been studied by
University of South Australia engineers.

"On examining accident statistics, it can be seen that in about 70 per cent
of recent aircraft accidents pilot error has been cited as the major
contributing factor," said Professor Stephen Cook, the director of the
university's Systems Engineering and Evaluation Centre.

"Aircraft failures make a low contribution to the overall accident rate,"
Professor Cook said.

"As a consequence, the significant improvements in air transport safety must
address this area," he said.

The safety of large passenger aircraft was at a high level, but fatal
accidents continued to occur around the world at a rate of almost one a
week.

"Data analysed shows that the rate of fatal accidents per flying hour has
decreased from the beginning of aviation up to around the 1980s," Professor
Cook said.

"The number of fatal accidents has since levelled out and has been almost
constant for more than two decades," he said.

Practical studies of air crash data are hampered by the extended time frames
needed to make proper assessments from the overall low rate of accidents.
The university engineers overcome this by studying computer models. "The use
of modelling as a tool for improving safety levels is one way of improving
aircraft safety," Professor Cook said.

"Computer-based modelling is essential and has been used in engineering
studies for decades.

"We need to pay more attention to the interaction between humans and the
systems they control.

"There is some resistance to the idea of modelling the behaviour of people,
such as pilots, who undertake complex functions, but given useful
information we can successfully model whole populations."

Although in the early stages of development, the computer model used in the
study has shown an initial capability to produce believable data on the
factors affecting pilot behaviour.

"Aviation is seen as the benchmark in safety performance. It is studied and
emulated by others from hospitals to railways," Professor Cook said.

"While aviation has a lot to teach, it also has a lot to learn if it is to
break through to the next level of safety."

The results of the study will be presented at a Brisbane aerospace
conference later this month.

[Trevor Fenn]

(Chad Irby) wrote in
>:

>"Dave Kearton" > wrote:
>
>> http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6774050%2
>> 55E911, 00.html
>>
>> By ANDREA STYLIANOU
>> 19jul03
>> THE actions of aircrew may be the major factor in most aircraft
>> accidents, research shows.
>
>Sun may be the major factor in daylight...
>

That's right, causes the wings to melt.

--
Trevor Fenn
There are too many zz's in my email address above.
Take two zz's and email me in the morning.

"Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just"
The Star Spangled Banner
Francis Scott Key

[Tarver Engineering]

"C Knowles" > wrote in message
.. .
> This is hardly news- another study to confirm what we have known for
years.
> The point here is what are we going to do to improve? What I find
> interesting is that the "level off" they discuss is coincidental with the
> arrival of two-man cockpits and increased automation. Unfortunately humans
> do not do too well at monitoring gages for hours at a time; we need to
stay
> interactive with the machinery. The 757 crash in Columbia was attributed
to
> crew error, and in fact the crew did make multiple errors. There were
> several points where they could have recovered. But the sequence started
> when the airplane's FMS turned torward the wrong navaid and the crew did
not
> recognise it.

No Curt, the sequence began when the validation rule: "remove all doubles"
was written for the FMS design. In fact, Columbia uses ROZO twice as a
waypoint indetifyer for navigating to the runway in question. Something
both operators should have known.

The second error occured when Honeywell sent a Service Bulletin to American
Airlines and it was allowed to set on dock for 180 days. The 180 days is
signifigant, in that the Columbians released the runway to 757 traffic in
that regulatory time period.

A third error occured when the first officer accepted the runway change and
used the "direct to" menu, in place of selecting the approach. Thereby
discovering the removal of the double ROZO.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

> "Dave Kearton" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Quoting without comment, I guess they'll come later
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> > Dave Kearton
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6774050%255E911,00.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > By ANDREA STYLIANOU
> > 19jul03
> > THE actions of aircrew may be the major factor in most aircraft
accidents,
> > research shows.
> >
> > The crew's actions in the technological surrounds of the cockpit and the
> > impact of external factors such as flying conditions have been studied
by
> > University of South Australia engineers.
> >
> > "On examining accident statistics, it can be seen that in about 70 per
> cent
> > of recent aircraft accidents pilot error has been cited as the major
> > contributing factor," said Professor Stephen Cook, the director of the
> > university's Systems Engineering and Evaluation Centre.
> >
> > "Aircraft failures make a low contribution to the overall accident
rate,"
> > Professor Cook said.
> >
> > "As a consequence, the significant improvements in air transport safety
> must
> > address this area," he said.
> >
> > The safety of large passenger aircraft was at a high level, but fatal
> > accidents continued to occur around the world at a rate of almost one a
> > week.
> >
> > "Data analysed shows that the rate of fatal accidents per flying hour
has
> > decreased from the beginning of aviation up to around the 1980s,"
> Professor
> > Cook said.
> >
> > "The number of fatal accidents has since levelled out and has been
almost
> > constant for more than two decades," he said.
> >
> > Practical studies of air crash data are hampered by the extended time
> frames
> > needed to make proper assessments from the overall low rate of
accidents.
> > The university engineers overcome this by studying computer models. "The
> use
> > of modelling as a tool for improving safety levels is one way of
improving
> > aircraft safety," Professor Cook said.
> >
> > "Computer-based modelling is essential and has been used in engineering
> > studies for decades.
> >
> > "We need to pay more attention to the interaction between humans and the
> > systems they control.
> >
> > "There is some resistance to the idea of modelling the behaviour of
> people,
> > such as pilots, who undertake complex functions, but given useful
> > information we can successfully model whole populations."
> >
> > Although in the early stages of development, the computer model used in
> the
> > study has shown an initial capability to produce believable data on the
> > factors affecting pilot behaviour.
> >
> > "Aviation is seen as the benchmark in safety performance. It is studied
> and
> > emulated by others from hospitals to railways," Professor Cook said.
> >
> > "While aviation has a lot to teach, it also has a lot to learn if it is
to
> > break through to the next level of safety."
> >
> > The results of the study will be presented at a Brisbane aerospace
> > conference later this month.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Michael Williamson]

Tarver Engineering wrote:

> No Curt, the sequence began when the validation rule: "remove all doubles"
> was written for the FMS design. In fact, Columbia uses ROZO twice as a
> waypoint indetifyer for navigating to the runway in question. Something
> both operators should have known.


It wasn't Rozo that was doubled- it was the identifier "R" for
that navaid. The crew called up the identifier, resulting in selection
of the navaid "Rome," an NDB serving Bogota, per the accident report.
The crew apparently failed to confirm that they had the correct
navaid, which, combined with a hurried approach, led to lack of
awareness as to the position of the aircraft relative to the airport,
the approach, and the high terrain.

http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/Cali/calirep.html


Mike

[Tarver Engineering]

"Michael Williamson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
>
> > No Curt, the sequence began when the validation rule: "remove all
doubles"
> > was written for the FMS design. In fact, Columbia uses ROZO twice as a
> > waypoint indetifyer for navigating to the runway in question. Something
> > both operators should have known.

> It wasn't Rozo that was doubled- it was the identifier "R" for
> that navaid. The crew called up the identifier, resulting in selection
> of the navaid "Rome," an NDB serving Bogota, per the accident report.

At 2137:29, AA965 asked Approach, "can American airlines uh, nine six five
go direct to Rozo and then do the Rozo arrival sir?" The Cali approach
controller replied, "affirmative. take the Rozo one and runway one niner,
the wind is calm." The captain responded, "alright Rozo, the Rozo one to one
nine, thank you, American nine six five." The controller stated, "(thank you
very much) [8].... report Tulua and e'eh, twenty one miles ah, five thousand
feet." The captain responded, "OK, report Tulua twenty one miles and five
thousand feet, American nine uh, six five."

> The crew apparently failed to confirm that they had the correct
> navaid, which, combined with a hurried approach, led to lack of
> awareness as to the position of the aircraft relative to the airport,
> the approach, and the high terrain.

The FO wanted to hand fly the airplane.

John P. Tarver, MS/PE

[gblack]

"Trevor Fenn" > wrote in message
...
: (Chad Irby) wrote in
: >:
:
: >"Dave Kearton" > wrote:
: >
: >>
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6774050%
2
: >> 55E911, 00.html
: >>
: >> By ANDREA STYLIANOU
: >> 19jul03
: >> THE actions of aircrew may be the major factor in most aircraft
: >> accidents, research shows.
: >
: >Sun may be the major factor in daylight...
: >
:
: That's right, causes the wings to melt.
:

You just gotta stop flying to close to the sun :-))
--
_________________________________________
George Black
ICQ#: 6963409
More ways to contact me: http://wwp.icq.com/6963409
_________________________________________
Home page: http://www.koekejunction.hnpl.net/

[John Smith]

People to blame for most car crashes.........what's new....human
error.....someone please hurry up with that computer brain implant, I'm
tired of not being perfect.

Most people can't drive a car and talk on the cell phone at the same time.

I think our pilots are doing a pretty damn good job.




"Dave Kearton" > wrote in message
...
>
> Quoting without comment, I guess they'll come later
>
>
> Cheers
>
>
> Dave Kearton
>
>
>
>
http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,6774050%255E91
1,00.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> By ANDREA STYLIANOU
> 19jul03
> THE actions of aircrew may be the major factor in most aircraft accidents,
> research shows.
>
> The crew's actions in the technological surrounds of the cockpit and the
> impact of external factors such as flying conditions have been studied by
> University of South Australia engineers.
>
> "On examining accident statistics, it can be seen that in about 70 per
cent
> of recent aircraft accidents pilot error has been cited as the major
> contributing factor," said Professor Stephen Cook, the director of the
> university's Systems Engineering and Evaluation Centre.
>
> "Aircraft failures make a low contribution to the overall accident rate,"
> Professor Cook said.
>
> "As a consequence, the significant improvements in air transport safety
must
> address this area," he said.
>
> The safety of large passenger aircraft was at a high level, but fatal
> accidents continued to occur around the world at a rate of almost one a
> week.
>
> "Data analysed shows that the rate of fatal accidents per flying hour has
> decreased from the beginning of aviation up to around the 1980s,"
Professor
> Cook said.
>
> "The number of fatal accidents has since levelled out and has been almost
> constant for more than two decades," he said.
>
> Practical studies of air crash data are hampered by the extended time
frames
> needed to make proper assessments from the overall low rate of accidents.
> The university engineers overcome this by studying computer models. "The
use
> of modelling as a tool for improving safety levels is one way of improving
> aircraft safety," Professor Cook said.
>
> "Computer-based modelling is essential and has been used in engineering
> studies for decades.
>
> "We need to pay more attention to the interaction between humans and the
> systems they control.
>
> "There is some resistance to the idea of modelling the behaviour of
people,
> such as pilots, who undertake complex functions, but given useful
> information we can successfully model whole populations."
>
> Although in the early stages of development, the computer model used in
the
> study has shown an initial capability to produce believable data on the
> factors affecting pilot behaviour.
>
> "Aviation is seen as the benchmark in safety performance. It is studied
and
> emulated by others from hospitals to railways," Professor Cook said.
>
> "While aviation has a lot to teach, it also has a lot to learn if it is to
> break through to the next level of safety."
>
> The results of the study will be presented at a Brisbane aerospace
> conference later this month.
>
>
>
>
>

[RT]

John Smith wrote in message
k.net>...
>Most people can't drive a car and talk on the cell phone at the same time.

But it's accepted that they can drive and talk to the pax (including in the
back seat) at the same time.

Why do I have a problem with this?

[[email protected]]

"RT" > wrote:

>
>John Smith wrote in message
k.net>...
>>Most people can't drive a car and talk on the cell phone at the same time.
>
>But it's accepted that they can drive and talk to the pax (including in the
>back seat) at the same time.
>
>Why do I have a problem with this?

I don't think that I do, it's not the same thing somehow,
something to do with the attention required to decipher the
intelligence from the much lower fidelity telephone earpiece and
listening to a (probably familiar) human voice a couple of feet
away unhampered by electronics.
>

--

-Gord.

[Kerryn Offord]

" wrote:
>
> "RT" > wrote:
>
> >
> >John Smith wrote in message
> k.net>...
> >>Most people can't drive a car and talk on the cell phone at the same time.
> >
> >But it's accepted that they can drive and talk to the pax (including in the
> >back seat) at the same time.
> >
> >Why do I have a problem with this?
>
> I don't think that I do, it's not the same thing somehow,
> something to do with the attention required to decipher the
> intelligence from the much lower fidelity telephone earpiece and
> listening to a (probably familiar) human voice a couple of feet
> away unhampered by electronics.

Both talking on a cell phone (hands free is almost as bad as hand held)
and talking to passengers are distractors....

The thing about talking to a passenger is that they are also in the
car... they can (and often do) look at the road conditions and think a
bit before talking, they also offer warnings if they see something that
the driver doesn't... meanwhile, someone on the other end of the phone..
they have no idea what is going on in the car...

(A fellow PhD student wants to examine this very thing....)

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> Kerryn Offord > wrote:
>
> >
> >
> " wrote:
> >>
> >> "RT" > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >John Smith wrote in message
> >> k.net>...
> >> >>Most people can't drive a car and talk on the cell phone at the same
time.
> >> >
> >> >But it's accepted that they can drive and talk to the pax (including
in the
> >> >back seat) at the same time.
> >> >
> >> >Why do I have a problem with this?
> >>
> >> I don't think that I do, it's not the same thing somehow,
> >> something to do with the attention required to decipher the
> >> intelligence from the much lower fidelity telephone earpiece and
> >> listening to a (probably familiar) human voice a couple of feet
> >> away unhampered by electronics.
> >
> >Both talking on a cell phone (hands free is almost as bad as hand held)
> >and talking to passengers are distractors....
> >
>
> I agree, it's not the lack of that hand that's holding the
> handset that's the big handicap it's that part of the driver's
> brain that's busied out by the attention that he's paying to the
> talker on the phone.
>
> They make a big time about "hands free" being so much
> safer..piffle on that I say.

Cigarette in the left hand and a thumb hooked through the wheel, while the
right hand holds the phone?

> >The thing about talking to a passenger is that they are also in the
> >car... they can (and often do) look at the road conditions and think a
> >bit before talking, they also offer warnings if they see something that
> >the driver doesn't... meanwhile, someone on the other end of the phone..
> >they have no idea what is going on in the car...
> >
> >(A fellow PhD student wants to examine this very thing....)
>
> I think he should, it's a ripe subject and could have far
> reaching good effects. The human mind is a damned complicated
> affair and the interaction of thought patterns and coincidental
> physical actions and decision making in relation to those actions
> is extremely complicated...when you think about it it's amazing
> that the human animal is capable of such inter-related
> thoughts/actions.

It is those incomming calls that kill.

[[email protected]]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote:

>
>"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
>> Kerryn Offord > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> " wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "RT" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >John Smith wrote in message
>> >> k.net>...
>> >> >>Most people can't drive a car and talk on the cell phone at the same
>time.
>> >> >
>> >> >But it's accepted that they can drive and talk to the pax (including
>in the
>> >> >back seat) at the same time.
>> >> >
>> >> >Why do I have a problem with this?
>> >>
>> >> I don't think that I do, it's not the same thing somehow,
>> >> something to do with the attention required to decipher the
>> >> intelligence from the much lower fidelity telephone earpiece and
>> >> listening to a (probably familiar) human voice a couple of feet
>> >> away unhampered by electronics.
>> >
>> >Both talking on a cell phone (hands free is almost as bad as hand held)
>> >and talking to passengers are distractors....
>> >
>>
>> I agree, it's not the lack of that hand that's holding the
>> handset that's the big handicap it's that part of the driver's
>> brain that's busied out by the attention that he's paying to the
>> talker on the phone.
>>
>> They make a big time about "hands free" being so much
>> safer..piffle on that I say.
>
>Cigarette in the left hand and a thumb hooked through the wheel, while the
>right hand holds the phone?
>
>> >The thing about talking to a passenger is that they are also in the
>> >car... they can (and often do) look at the road conditions and think a
>> >bit before talking, they also offer warnings if they see something that
>> >the driver doesn't... meanwhile, someone on the other end of the phone..
>> >they have no idea what is going on in the car...
>> >
>> >(A fellow PhD student wants to examine this very thing....)
>>
>> I think he should, it's a ripe subject and could have far
>> reaching good effects. The human mind is a damned complicated
>> affair and the interaction of thought patterns and coincidental
>> physical actions and decision making in relation to those actions
>> is extremely complicated...when you think about it it's amazing
>> that the human animal is capable of such inter-related
>> thoughts/actions.
>
>It is those incomming calls that kill.
>
I agree that they're likely a little more dangerous than the
others due to the fact that they're likely somewhat more
mysterious at first al least.
--

-Gord.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
...
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Gord Beaman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> Kerryn Offord > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> " wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> "RT" > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >John Smith wrote in message
> >> >> k.net>...
> >> >> >>Most people can't drive a car and talk on the cell phone at the
same
> >time.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >But it's accepted that they can drive and talk to the pax
(including
> >in the
> >> >> >back seat) at the same time.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Why do I have a problem with this?
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't think that I do, it's not the same thing somehow,
> >> >> something to do with the attention required to decipher the
> >> >> intelligence from the much lower fidelity telephone earpiece and
> >> >> listening to a (probably familiar) human voice a couple of feet
> >> >> away unhampered by electronics.
> >> >
> >> >Both talking on a cell phone (hands free is almost as bad as hand
held)
> >> >and talking to passengers are distractors....
> >> >
> >>
> >> I agree, it's not the lack of that hand that's holding the
> >> handset that's the big handicap it's that part of the driver's
> >> brain that's busied out by the attention that he's paying to the
> >> talker on the phone.
> >>
> >> They make a big time about "hands free" being so much
> >> safer..piffle on that I say.
> >
> >Cigarette in the left hand and a thumb hooked through the wheel, while
the
> >right hand holds the phone?
> >
> >> >The thing about talking to a passenger is that they are also in the
> >> >car... they can (and often do) look at the road conditions and think a
> >> >bit before talking, they also offer warnings if they see something
that
> >> >the driver doesn't... meanwhile, someone on the other end of the
phone..
> >> >they have no idea what is going on in the car...
> >> >
> >> >(A fellow PhD student wants to examine this very thing....)
> >>
> >> I think he should, it's a ripe subject and could have far
> >> reaching good effects. The human mind is a damned complicated
> >> affair and the interaction of thought patterns and coincidental
> >> physical actions and decision making in relation to those actions
> >> is extremely complicated...when you think about it it's amazing
> >> that the human animal is capable of such inter-related
> >> thoughts/actions.
> >
> >It is those incomming calls that kill.
> >
> I agree that they're likely a little more dangerous than the
> others due to the fact that they're likely somewhat more
> mysterious at first al least.

It is a statistically known fact, as telephone revenue is referenced to
time.