FADEC = complex

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

It appears that you are describing another form of pilot error. If one
believes that they can set an autopilot and then take a nap, *that* is the
problem, not the behavior of the autopilot.

A lot of commercial pilots do that.

Really? Exactly how many?

A lot of accidents have occurred when automated systems allowed crews
to lose their situational awareness. Autopilots are particularly
implicated in this respect, perhaps because they've been around so
long and work so well.

I recollect one accident specifically attributed to pilot's loss of
situational awareness (GPS, though, not AutoPilot). The details can be read
about he http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2006/AAB0601.pdf

The pilots, not the automation, were implicated in this accident for failing
to properly monitor their situation. Numerous navigational aids were
available to them, and they were expected to use them to ensure they
maintained situational awareness, even when the autopilot was on.

Can you point me to an NTSB report where the automation was implicated in the
Pilot's lack of situational awareness? I just can't find any.

Mxsmanic wrote in
:

Catastrophic failure is usually caused by software, not hardware.

"Guns don't kill people...

Software kills people...

A message from the NRA..."

karl gruber writes:

No. Boeing used fly by wire at LEAST a decade before Airbus.

On civilian aircraft? Which ones, and in what way?

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Judah writes:

Really? Exactly how many?

A number of the ones I've talked to. Sometimes it's hard to stay
awake.

The pilots, not the automation, were implicated in this accident for failing
to properly monitor their situation. Numerous navigational aids were
available to them, and they were expected to use them to ensure they
maintained situational awareness, even when the autopilot was on.

Ultimately it is the pilot's responsibility. But that doesn't prevent
it from happening.

Can you point me to an NTSB report where the automation was implicated in the
Pilot's lack of situational awareness? I just can't find any.

I've already posted a list of accidents.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

Judah writes:

A corollary statement to the above is that when a driver sets the cruise-
control in his car, he no longer needs to monitor his speed, and will fail to
notice if the speed in his car begins to change or if he has blows out a
tire.

To some extent, that is true. A tire blowing out usually catches
one's attention, but a subtle change in speed may not.

Is this what you do when you turn on the cruise control in your car?

I refuse to use cruise control.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote

I wasn't keeping score. I just like to talk about aviation.

No you just talk about things that you know nothing about, and sims.
--
Jim in NC

Mxsmanic wrote:
Neil Gould writes:


The pilot is *never* "allowed to lose awareness of the
aspect that has been removed".


Of course he is.

If he turns on the autopilot and tells it to hold a heading, the
autopilot will do so (in many cases) by moving the ailerons without
any intervention on his part.

But he is fully aware of his heading. He takes a quick glance at the DG
or the GPS to verify the AP is doing what it is supposed to be doing.
Thus freeing much brain power for other things.




Unless he is holding the yoke, he has
no awareness of how the ailerons are being moved by the autopilot.



He knows exactly how the AP manipulates the ailerons.







Indeed, the whole value of the autopilot resides in the fact that it
can adjust the ailerons without his help, and he need not know their
exact positions.


Yes.






Without the autopilot, he'd have to be continuously
aware of this, which is a non-trivial task.


And yakes up valuable time and brain power that could be better spent
elsewhere.



The flip side is that the pilot may not be aware of any unusual moves
that the autopilot is making.



He is aware.






If the thrust from the engines is
becoming asymmetrical,


Not likely on my single engine plane. Easily seen on any twin engine
plane as the MP and RPM gauge is in the regular scan, autopilot or no.





the pilot may not realize it, because the
autopilot adjusts to compensate for the difference in thrust. By the
time the autopilot reaches the limit of its capabilities and
disconnects, the adjustments it has made may be very extreme, and the
pilot may be so surprised by the sudden change in the attitude of the
aircraft that he cannot recover his awareness quickly enough to avoid
an accident.

No, utter crap.





It is not necessary for the most part, and that's precisely why the
automation exists.


You can keep saying this a million times if you want. And you will be
wrong each and every one of those million times.

Judah wrote:




A corollary statement to the above is that when a driver sets the cruise-
control in his car, he no longer needs to monitor his speed, and will fail to
notice if the speed in his car begins to change or if he has blows out a
tire. Is this what you do when you turn on the cruise control in your car?

He makes $600 a month, there is no cruise control in his inventory.
Except on his driving sim.

Newps writes:

But he is fully aware of his heading.

But he is not aware of the position of the ailerons. He would be
aware of that without the autopilot. Thus, he has lost a certain
amount of situational awareness.

He knows exactly how the AP manipulates the ailerons.

But he doesn't know their positions.

Not likely on my single engine plane.

It is impossible on a single-engine plane.

You can keep saying this a million times if you want. And you will be
wrong each and every one of those million times.

It is true that repeating something doesn't make it right or wrong.
Ponder on that.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Morgans writes:

That is EXACTLY opposite from what is the truth.

Unfortunately, no, it is not.

Each automation system removes some aspect of the pilot workload. An
unavoidable consequence of this is that the pilot is also allowed to
lose awareness of the aspect that has been removed (if he were not,
there'd be no point in the automation).

Automation in the cockpits allows the pilot to MONITOR the systems ...

He could do that already, when he was flying the plane himself.

And automation does not require monitoring; that's why it is called
automation. And if it did require monitoring, it would serve no
purpose. The purpose of automation is to make things automatic--that
is, to remove the need for monitoring and intervention.

This entire post is absolute nonsense.


--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.