Air Canada Incident

[Chuck Ellsworth]

I'm sure the FDR will reveal all though.

I would be surprised if it doesen't.

[swede]

So a system malfunction of some sort caused this upset - that much is obvious and the fdr's will identify what happened. Getting back to the earlier post about pilot-less aircraft. This would in all probability have resulted in the loss of the aircraft if the thing were a drone. Yet to my knowledge, passenger aircraft of the future 10 or so years are going to be flown as drones. Are they really gonna try to pull this off? I find it incredible that the idea is even being discussed, much less considered.

[AirdogAlpha]

Good day all.

I see some mention of Mark Miller, CTV.

I am he.

The term expert is one that I have asked not to be used, I prefer Aviation Correspondent, (which is how the network refers to me normally) it has been a running introduction around this story. Networks like experts... I don't. Currently, I am the Aviation Correspondent for the Discovery Channel and when asked, assist CTV. I have spent 10 years working for the Discovery Family, reviewing accidents, covering new projects and making programs about aviation, many about advances and incidents. I have flown +20 types and started flying 30 years ago. I currently own three aircraft. I attempt not to jump to conclusions, but, attempt provide context and understanding, drawn on research, past incidents, and information passed on to me as by aviators with clear understanding of incidents, but who are unable to speak publicly. This is live television and occasionally I do slip up and the words come up wrong. I do not inflate the seriousness of incidents, if anything I attempt to turn the temperature down on these kinds of stories. I would encourage any aviator or member of this forum help create a dialog of understanding. The mass media may be one the our most effective tools. We can all agree that there is a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding that creates an unwarrented fear around flying. My job as a pilot- journalist is to educate the general public and inspire young people to consider aviation as a career. There are many people more qualified then me to speak, I agree, unfortunately because of their jobs as investigators, pilots, AME's ect ect... they can not speak freely. I am merely one small conduit that can help get important information out. Whether we like it or not... if I am there or not, the media is going to cover these kinds of stories. As aviators we need to try to temper and provide context when possible. I spent many minutes yesterday using this incident to encourage people to keep their seat belts fastened at all time. Incidents like this can be used as good public message platforms. Your support, suggestions, corrections would be greatly appreciated.

[WS739]

AC190 Autopilot malfunction. Runaway possibly?

AC190 told centre they were going to talk to company, repeated company frequency for some reason over Centre's freq and im guessing the majority of people heard them say it was the autopilot. Buddy heard the whole conversation! not turbulence related apparently!

[WJ700]

Good day all.

I see some mention of Mark Miller, CTV.

I am he.

The term expert is one that I have asked not to be used, I prefer Aviation Correspondent, (which is how the network refers to me normally) it has been a running introduction around this story. Networks like experts... I don't. Currently, I am the Aviation Correspondent for the Discovery Channel and when asked, assist CTV. I have spent 10 years working for the Discovery Family, reviewing accidents, covering new projects and making programs about aviation, many about advances and incidents. I have flown +20 types and started flying 30 years ago. I currently own three aircraft. I attempt not to jump to conclusions, but, attempt provide context and understanding, drawn on research, past incidents, and information passed on to me as by aviators with clear understanding of incidents, but who are unable to speak publicly. This is live television and occasionally I do slip up and the words come up wrong. I do not inflate the seriousness of incidents, if anything I attempt to turn the temperature down on these kinds of stories. I would encourage any aviator or member of this forum help create a dialog of understanding. The mass media may be one the our most effective tools. We can all agree that there is a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding that creates an unwarrented fear around flying. My job as a pilot- journalist is to educate the general public and inspire young people to consider aviation as a career. There are many people more qualified then me to speak, I agree, unfortunately because of their jobs as investigators, pilots, AME's ect ect... they can not speak freely. I am merely one small conduit that can help get important information out. Whether we like it or not... if I am there or not, the media is going to cover these kinds of stories. As aviators we need to try to temper and provide context when possible. I spent many minutes yesterday using this incident to encourage people to keep their seat belts fastened at all time. Incidents like this can be used as good public message platforms. Your support, suggestions, corrections would be greatly appreciated.

Hi Mark,

Thanks for the clarification. I really didn't expect an answer from the actual guy.

[CID]

Getting back to the earlier post about pilot-less aircraft. This would in all probability have resulted in the loss of the aircraft if the thing were a drone. Yet to my knowledge, passenger aircraft of the future 10 or so years are going to be flown as drones. Are they really gonna try to pull this off? I

The reason we don't have pilotless aircraft yet is because the technology to achieve that safely just isn't there yet and probably won't be around for decades.

Having said that, the incredible amount of technology and automation in modern airliners contribute to the level of safety we enjoy today.

Generally speaking, the more decision making you take away from the pilot, the safer the operation of the airplane is under normal circumstances.

If you walked out on the ramp and had the choice to get on a brand new 707 or an A330 with 40,000 hours on it to fly to Europe, which would be safer? Arguably, it would be fun to jump on a 707 for nostalgic purposes but the level of safety afforded by the technology in the A330 puts it light years ahead of the 707 in the level of safety.

AirdogAlpha,

Your post was very well written. I'm sure you've heard these sorts of criticisms before. It seems like people in this industry are quite intolerant of mistakes in the news about aircraft related stories.

It's an interesting phenomenon really. These guys get on their high horses without considering the nature of news reporting.

I saw a few of your contributions on CTV and they seemed fine to me. There was no overspeculation, no apparent bias and enough information to keep the general public apprised of the situation. That's all we can ask for until the actual cause is sorted out.

Sure there may prove to be some inaccuracies but again, that's the nature of the beast. Provide a first impression, and correct facts as they develop.

Keep up the good work.

[flightsimmer747]

Hey folks,

What if the autopilot was on and having gone through an air pocket the plane had to go back on course where at this point the plane went into a tilt/bank climb from loosing altitude and heading, then the pilot disengaged the autopilot as a precaution which took about 15 seconds before regaining control. I mean the rest of the flight was smooth and because of injured pax, they had to land right away. Maybe even ILS, and hence no problem with the autopilot at all.


Just an opinion!

[Rockie]

I agree with your post regarding new generation aircraft safety CID, but I just wanted to comment on something that I don't think you really intended to say. Aircraft today are safer because of increased reliability and technology designed to enhance a pilot's decision making ability, not remove it.

Hard systems like fuel, hydraulic and environmental are simpler than they were years ago, and automatic monitoring and scheduling has greatly decreased pilot workload. System status pages can show crews exactly what's going on graphically and crew alerting systems are programmed to alert the pilots when something is not behaving the way it should. Smart electronic abnormal checklists that prioritize themselves generally make things clearer although even they have some pitfalls. Flight Management Systems guide the aircraft along carefully programmed routing and performance criteria more precisely than humans can and they don't get tired. But none of this replaces a pilots ability or responsibility for making any of the countless decisions they make on any given flight. We sometimes forget the human judgement exercised by pilots each and every flight because it only becomes an issue when something goes wrong. No one keeps track of the dozens of times human intervention and decision making keeps planes out of trouble every time they move.

Computers are great calculators and system monitors, but I think it will be a long time before they build one that can exercise human judgement. The quote at the bottom of Cat's posts says it best.

"The most difficult thing about flying is knowing when to say no."

That takes a human being.

[AirdogAlpha]

if this AC190 thing was AP disengage or a computer bug... their are redundant systems..

But the ultimate back up human is still the one with blood...pumping through his or her processors. Let's keep the people in the pointy end of the aircraft

[CID]

I agree with your post regarding new generation aircraft safety CID, but I just wanted to comment on something that I don't think you really intended to say. Aircraft today are safer because of increased reliability and technology designed to enhance a pilot's decision making ability, not remove it.

Rockie, I think you are refering to my statement:

Generally speaking, the more decision making you take away from the pilot, the safer the operation of the airplane is under normal circumstances.

I can't speak as an expert but based on my reserach, one of the major causes of "human error" related accidents is the failure of the pilot to follow instructions be it from ATC, AFM procedures, operating regulations or approved company procedures to name a few. Failure to follow instructions can be due to simple miscommuncation or because the pilot feels he knows better.

Automated control devices (computers etc) greatly reduce the chances of an error creeping in because they effectively take the decision away from the pilot. If he/she wants to do somthing dumb, automation can stop him/her in some cases.

Hard systems like fuel, hydraulic and environmental are simpler than they were years ago

I disagree. They are much more complicated at both the component and system level. The increase of automation and reduction of cockpit controls and indicators make them "simpler" to the pilot and make it difficult (and sometimes impossible) for the flightcrew to configure or control the systems incorrectly.

Just consider all the electrical bus transfering that goes on automatically on modern airliners. No "decision" needs to be made by the pilots as to the appropriate configuraton during the various phases of operation. It just happens.

Let's take the much talked about (and controversial) 757 flight into terrain in Cali. Many argue that if it was an Airbus it may have been able to climb at a higher rate and avoid contact with the mountain. That's because of the higher degree of automation that would have retracted the flight spoilers when full power was selected.

Computers are great calculators and system monitors, but I think it will be a long time before they build one that can exercise human judgement.

Yes. Computer today don't possess properties of "human judgement". So they don't change the way they work because they didn't get enough sleep or they're mad at their kids or they've been drinking too much. They don't revert to "common sense" mode and they can't act out of vengeance. Do we really want a computer that excercises "human judgement"?

Of course this has the potential for major debate and even disgust so let me say that I understand my statements are controversial and based on a subject (completely automated commercial flight) that is really just theoretical so I can certainly agree to disagee here.

[mark_]

Guys it's intersting that everyone jumped in on the free for all press bashing and when Mark has the b#lls to actually come here and introduce yourself...you ignore him.
Just an observation.

[2milefinal]

Hey folks,

What if the autopilot was on and having gone through an air pocket the plane had to go back on course where at this point the plane went into a tilt/bank climb from loosing altitude and heading, then the pilot disengaged the autopilot as a precaution which took about 15 seconds before regaining control. I mean the rest of the flight was smooth and because of injured pax, they had to land right away. Maybe even ILS, and hence no problem with the autopilot at all.


Just an opinion!

Dont mean to pick on you PUT there is no such thing as an air pocket.

Mark/AirdogAlpha
its good to see here.
I did like the way you pretty much stopped the news people from using the Flight Explorer/Flight Aware information as
accurate information. (at least I think it was you)

[Chuck Ellsworth]

If I were to ever fly as crew in a big modern jet again I would want CID as an F.O...

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Dont mean to pick on you PUT there is no such thing as an air pocket.

Sure there is, I've flown into hundreds of thousands of them.

[2milefinal]

Got any pictures of those air pockets Cat?

[Valcore]

"Air pockets" is a term allegedly coined by a journalist who rode along on a flight during World War I. It is assumed he was making a general reference to turbulence. Air pockets DO NOT EXIST at all in the atmosphere, but the expression caught on and is still misused today when referring to turbulence.

We are frequently alerted to clear air turbulence (CAT) by air traffic control if aircraft ahead of us have reported it. Every airline flight is monitored by an airline dispatcher. Sometimes flights are contacted by their dispatcher and notified of areas with reported CAT or other turbulence, and sometimes we know of such areas even before we depart. Often we can avoid flying through areas of known turbulence, and other times it just isn't possible.

Whether it's clear air turbulence, thermal or some other type of turbulence, airplanes rarely experience a "dramatic" drop in altitude. The feeling is quite deceptive from the passengers' perspective and how much altitude we lose or gain is one of the most commonly asked questions I receive. The fact is, when we're at cruise altitude we're normally on autopilot, which electronically locks onto our course and altitude. We rarely gain or lose more than ten to twenty feet, if that, and even when a pilot is manually flying the airplane, it's not likely to be much more than that, if any.

Flying through rough air isn't much different from driving your car over a rough road or being in a boat in choppy waters. It may be bumpy, but it doesn't affect our course or altitude unless the pilots request and receive a change of one or both if doing so may reduce the amount of turbulence. Pilots may go to some trouble to give their passengers a smooth ride, but sometimes turbulence is simply unavoidable.

The airplane itself is not normally in any jeopardy, but the people inside may be if they're not buckled up. You may hear an announcement telling the flight attendants to be seated, but this isn't particular cause for concern on the part of the passengers. The pilots are just looking out for the flight attendants who may otherwise be up and about even during a bumpy flight.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Got any pictures of those air pockets Cat?

No because air is an invisible liquid that has the capacity of expansion, contraction and mobility.

These properties are what cause " Air pockets " a common description used by people who do not have the privilege of being a know it all pilot.

But I'll be you already knew that.

[2milefinal]

know it all pilot...now if only I could get my wife to think i know it all.

[niwre]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... ional/home

[Rockie]

CID

I think we have different interpretations of the term "decision making". System automation relieves the pilot of having to accomplish normal and abnormal procedures that can be done by either computer or smarter hardware design. Making a mistake in applying a procedure is not the same as making an incorrect decision. Decision making for me has more to do with flight management rather than aircraft system management. System automation is the same principle as having the FO fly the airplane following a Cat II missed approach. You as Captain have some thinking and decision making to do and you are better able to do that if you're not also flying the plane.

The Cali 757 might not have hit the mountain if it had automatically retracting speed brakes, but that's not why it crashed as you know. The crew had a complete breakdown of situational awareness that they failed to recognize on time, and when they finally did they failed to make the necessary flight management decisions soon enough to save their lives. Forgetting to stow the speedbrakes was just the last item in a long string of failures. Doc and Cat are always reminding people about their authority and responsibility as pilot of an airplane, and their message is just as valid on an A340 as it is on a DC-3. Automation does not ever take the place of pilot decision making and incorrect use of automation, or worse, abdicating your role as pilot to automation will get you killed. Even engaging the autopilot is a crucial decision because you have to determine if the conditions are appropriate. There are many different levels of automatic flight guidance and deciding which level is appropriate requires skill and judgement. In modern airplanes it is not a simple case of ON/OFF anymore.

[CID]

If I were to ever fly as crew in a big modern jet again I would want CID as an F.O...

Cat, I thought God was your copilot.

Rockie,

You're right about the string of events in the Cali accident. One of the first in the string was the human error that compiled the FMS navigation data base.

You mentioned situational awareness. That's a human trait that is often a result of failing to follow procedures. Or simply put, making bad decisions.

System automation is the same principle as having the FO fly the airplane following a Cat II missed approach. You as Captain have some thinking and decision making to do and you are better able to do that if you're not also flying the plane.

Mostly moot with autoland which is arguably the ultimate automated task in airplanes these days.

[Rockie]

System automation is the same principle as having the FO fly the airplane following a Cat II missed approach. You as Captain have some thinking and decision making to do and you are better able to do that if you're not also flying the plane.

Mostly moot with autoland which is arguably the ultimate automated task in airplanes these days.

Not at all moot. This is when you sit up straight and pay attention.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Not at all moot. This is when you sit up straight and pay attention.

Not to mention the crew gets a better picture of just what exactly is going on.

[Rockie]

If you don't know exactly what's going on you might as well sit in the back.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Rocky....while the airplane is flying its self to the landing and the pilots have only to monitor it would that not equate into ...

gets a better picture

Or must we argue over semantics? :mrgreen