Aircrews `to blame' for most crashes

Quoting without comment, I guess they'll come later


Cheers


Dave Kearton



http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au...55E911,00.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.

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...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.

John Smith wrote in message
nk.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?

"RT" wrote:


John Smith wrote in message
ink.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.

" wrote:

"RT" wrote:


John Smith wrote in message
ink.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....)