The Oil Change That Crashed A Passenger Jet | The Crash Of Smartlynx 9001
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 22 ก.พ. 2021
- A320 Image: www.flickr.com/people/1309612...
Video Made With FlightControlReplay (Not Sponsored): secure.simmarket.com/fabio-me...
This is the story of smartlynx 9001. On the 28th of february 2018, a smartlynx A320 was over the skies of tallin, estonia. It wasnt flying anywhere it was just a flight to train pilots for the airline.
On that day the plane had a safety pilot, 4 training pilots and a safety inspector onboard and before the flight they had a safety briefing, today each training pilot would get to fly several touch and gos and go-around before doing a full stop landing and switching seats, for a touch and go you approach the runway as you would for a normal landing and then right after touch down you apply full power and take the plane back into the air, it's great practice for pilots as they’d get some great manual flight experience.
The first flight was uneventful, they did the touch and go as normal. But after finishing the takeoff phase of the first touch and go a warning popped up on the screen. ELAC1 + ELAC2 PITCH FAULTs. The ELAC or the elevator aileron computer had an issue, the ELACs as the name suggests controls the elevators and the ailerons, the ELACs take in the sidestick inputs and then move the control surfaces as the pilot commanded. Think of it as a middle man in the chain. The pilot who was monitoring the flight didnt think much of it, read the instructions on the screen to turn the ELAC off and on again and so they did what we all do, they reset the computer to clear the error. Weve all done it, turing it off and then back on fixes a lot of problems and it cleared all caution messages so they continued with their touch and go training
The first student pilot landed his plane and brought the plane to a stop and now the second student pilot assumed control of the plane. As the student number 2 took the plane to the skies the ELAC1 pitch fault error popped up again, and like last time the system was reset as per standard operating procedure at that time. The same happened during the next touch and go. On the fifth touch and go an ELAC2 pitch fault error popped up. This happened again for the 4th students second touch and go, these pitch fault errors kept coming and the resets cleared them but they obviously kept coming back.
It was time for The third touch and go the plane touched down and it was rolling down the runway. The plane then accelerated to 130 knots to lift back into the skies. The instructor asked the student to rotate, he said “rotate rotate” but the plane wouldn't budge, it was stuck to the ground firmly. The pilot replied that was trying his best to raise the nose of the plane into the air. He had his sidestick all the way back demanding a full up elevator to lift the nose up but there was no pitch response at all.
At this point a new warning was shown on the primary flight display a red “manual pitch trim only” the pilots would have to manage the pitch trim on their own. When you trim an airplane the airplane stays in a particular state without any inputs, so let's say you trim a plane up, then the plane will nose up on its own and then stabilize at a certain airspeed. Normally the fly by wire of the A320 does this fully automatically but now the pilots had to manage that on its own and the red “MAN PITCH ONLY” instructed them to do so. - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
13:15 Thanks, I'm glad I could help! Awesome episode!
5th🙀🙀
@@e3xgamer900 we have evidence of time travel!!!!!!
@@arctictiger8690 Oh no my secret has been exposed
@@e3xgamer900 Look! He/she admitted to it! WE HAVE PROOF! PROOF I TELL YOU!!!!
Way too much automation...
Here's an idea, when you keep getting multiple warnings park the damn plane for inspection. Their training exercise wasn't worth risking their lives.
Yep. After the second reset the best thing to do would've been to get the plane on the ground asap and report the problems to engineering.
Not the first time probably not last. Irresponsible to ignore repeated warnings.. Land and fix.
not half obvious is it!
I was thinking the same thing!! Seems crazy to keep flying and doing touch and goes with multiple faults and resets.
what was the safety pilot doing? he should know better, and keep the plane flying.
A first warning might be an instrument glitch. The second time it shows up, the machine's trying to tell you something. Listen to it.
Lol I have so many Acft I’d love to introduce you to
Completely agree. This was too much dependence on automation.
I see this in every industry, everyone puts up with "turn it off and back on" to fix stuff. It's amazingly scary how fragile our technology is. Just good enough to work most of the time. I'm guilty of it too, "1st time is a fluke, 2nd time is a pattern" is my take on the old phrase.
@@laser31415 When it comes to flight controls you don't mess with it, it's so important that it is part of an emergency brief for an abort below 80 knots. Especially as this was a training flight having an instructor and inspector on board, they should have returned to the ramp after the second assumed glitch. Very poor demonstration of airmanship from the trainers.
"A first warning might be an instrument glitch." Right. So in this case, land and find out.
Plane: theres something wrong
Pilot: shut up not now
Plane: theres really something wrong
Pilot: cant you see we're busy
Plane: Im doing my best here but THERES SOMETHING WRONG
Pilot: bloody computers. so anyway, back to the lesson
Plane: Im sorry I tried but I will crash now
Pilot: no one could have predicted this unforeseeable event
Haha there was an old commercial for Gillette shavers, " not once not twice, but three" and this poor machines even added a 4th time and the pilots wouldn't listen!
That is not how it happened at all. This is what is annoying me is people don’t fully understand that the pilot resetting the computers actually made everything normal. When the computer kept flagging up the warning it was back how it was before. It did not get any worse and it was actually because the pilot didn’t reset the computer that the aircraft computers then failed
@@tomstravels520 the computer kept failing in the same way every time though. if safe flight depends on the pilot remembering to reset a faulty flight control system repeatedly then landing should be considered a priority.
@@conorlanders8401 if this was a normal A to B flight this warning would never have occurred and nobody would have known about it. The manuals did not clearly state what to do for training circuit as it just said to reset the computer and if it doesn’t work then it’s faulty. Because the aircraft landed then took off again this was deemed to be a separate flight and every time it was reset the computer functioned as it should
@@CaptainDangeax by the time the APU would have been available the plane would have already landed on the runway
Sounds like the automation was trying to save their lives. They treated that warning like a check engine light on a 99 Taurus.
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
😂😂😂
😂
I have watched many OBD/OBD2 etc videos
Imagine, a high tech aircraft keeps telling you that there is a serious problem, you do several landings and you still ignore the warnings.
Darwin Award Candidates
@Proton Neutron:
The problem with the "Darwin Award" is that you have to be a non-contribuor to the "gene pool".
Lots of pilots have contributed (some more than once 😢☹️), to the gene pool, and are thus "ineligible" for the "Darwin Award"☹️😢
Not true. It was actually the pilot not resetting the he computer that caused the problem. If he’d kept resetting every time this wouldn’t have happened
@@tomstravels520 Really? Please site the accident report saying that. Or, admit you are making sh!t up.
@@protonneutron9046 when the pilot reset the computer it restored both roll and pitch channel of the ELAC fo full working order as there was no problems with controlling the stabiliser. Then when he landed and held on to the THS, because of the issue with the OVM and PTA’s this caused the pitch channel of the ELAC in command to stop working and transfer to the other. The pilot then reset the computer and then both ELACS are then fully working again.
On the last one the pilot didn’t reset the partially failed ELAC so when they landed and the ELAC detected a “fault” it couldn’t transfer to the other ELAC as it had been doing all this time so then went to the SEC’s but they then suffered from the design flaw
www.ojk.ee/et/system/files/fail/manus/ee0180_es_san_investigation_report.pdf
After resetting the computer twice they should have landed.
True, but they had no reason to believe it wasn't a display/indication fault...
@@svjatoslavskabarin1173 Yeah. they also had NO indication that it WAS a display fault.
If your safety systems repeatedly tells you "you are gonna die", you assume it is truthful and land.
ASSuming the fault is in the display and not in the system it is monitoring is an ASSumption that will kill you, eventually.
It's like taking your morning coffee, seeing a "danger: poison. contents cyanide" on the bottle, and assuming that the label is wrong, not that your lab partner brought his work home again.
I think the instructor failed his students.
After landing twice they should have stayed landed.
@@svjatoslavskabarin1173 better safe than dead
As a A320 pilot , i can tell you one thing for sure ! This is an absolutely great explanation of a very complex event . Something that latter led Airbus to change & tweak a few things with the Manual Pitch trim and timing logics
Great content . Keep it going
is a320 safe?
Automatique
Are u real pilot damn....cool
Often the safety standards are written in blood, but this time nobody got hurt. And with every accident and incident the industry becomes safer. Which is also why it is the safest method of transport.
I forgot the exact numbers, but it was something like 1 in 20 million flights has issues, and 1 in 5 million of these somebody get hurt. The risk to get injured is so incredibly low.
It seems to me that the flight should have been wrapped up after the second elac alarm. To carry on resetting the computer repeatedly seems to me to be unwise.
I'd say, after the FIRST caution light...
@@jahnkaplank8626 Resetting an error message once is usually advisable it can actually just be an indication error but if the exact same error appears again without any meaningful delay you might have a more serious problem and you should shut down you machine.
James Bond Rule..
Once is Happenstance ( aka shit happens)
Twice is Coincidence ( aka look at that ! )
BUT.... 3x is ENEMY ACTION !!! ( somebody wants you DEAD )
They were extremely lucky to have not crashed on that last takeoff. If the plane had been loaded, it would have crashed.
As an AI student, automation-human interaction is one of the most difficult problem. When decision making (in human-time, i.e. >10-30 seconds) is involved you would think non-authoritative suggestive automation (warning signals, alarms, voice suggestions) would be better than full automation or no automation, but it seems people assume that once the warning disappears, the problem is gone.
True, however I’m a little shocked that check pilots would have continued flying with so many errors. Those are pretty serious faults (especially once you get errors on 1&2.)
I'm not a pilot, I'm in IT, so I might not know anything about about airplane systems. Still, I hope what I have to say might help someone.
The problem is that so many times an "Error" comes up because of a minor computer glitch and not because of a functional problem with the system. When you're used to warnings meaning NOTHING and fixing them with reboots, you have become desensitized to flashing (beeping, voice) warnings. There needs to be a clear differentiation to the user between computer glitches and functional problems that will cause a crash.
@Hypercube Jones Honestly I think it's an airLINE problem and not an airPLANE problem. The fundamental design of the Airbus architecture Is absolutely safer than any other commercial aircraft manufacturer out there (you won't hear about it, because.... that's the point. You CAN however find major incident reports, which would have usually resulted in a crash of a competing model/mfg.)
Airlines need to require and increase hand-flying minimums during proficiency checks, and should at least mandate a minimum number of hrs as well.
This is completely different, and a maintenance issue, but as far as automation goes - a maintenance screw-up is a maintenance screw-up. I'm not sure you can fault the aircraft mfg or even the pilots, though as I stated above, LAND THE DAMN PLANE when you have that many warnings, especially on multiple units that you (should) know are independent and redundant.
@@prycenewberg3976 Riding inside a flying coffin whose control computer would be perfectly happy flying a cruise missile to its target and being blown to smithereens is not very appealing to me. I prefer something at the controls that will hit the mountain or the ground first that probably doesn't want that to happen any more than I.
@@algrayson8965 Problem is that humans are very dumb and slow.
I'd say automation should be between 5 and 8. Not enough automation = pilot overload. Too much automation = pilot in the dark if things go south.
Even more automation = pilot out of a job.
We seem to _almost_ have fully self-driving cars right now, and I've heard a lot that self-piloting is much easier in the air than on the ground - for just one example, no parked cars on the side to hide the child that's going to run out in front of you.
Food for thought.
Dude, the plane told them that something was wrong. They chose to ignore it, resetting the computer time and again. I can understand if they reset the computer once. But if it comes on a third time, maybe, just maybe you should consider that there might be something wrong... It's kinda like you see your engine check light and say: "Ah, no big deal!"Until your engine locks up. Then it is a big deal.
@@brkr78 eh, I don't necessarily agree. For starters, this wasn't a revenue flight, so no passengers on board. Second, I suspect this is similar to why the DC-10 didn't originally have hydraulic fuses in its control loops: prior to UA232 no one thought a DC-10 could suffer damage to all of the (if I recall correctly) four hydraulic systems at once. I can see the pilots making the decision that "Welp, looks like one have a fault in one of our quadruple redundant systems. We have three left, so I guess we'll just finish up and have maintenance figure it out on the ground."
I don't have a manual for an A320, but I'd be surprised if this was considered a "land right now" kind of issue. Even with all four computers out of action, the plane will revert to manual stabilizer control, which shouldn't be an issue for a pilot (its not like Cessnas have fancy fly by wire systems, everyone trains to fly it manually first). The issue here is that the specific way the system failed meant that the two remaining computers didn't realize they were being overridden, and I suspect they were still sending erroneous stabilizer trim changes, hence the "stuck to the ground" issue the pilots were having. The horizontal stabilizer has a lot more control authority than the elevators, so if it was trying to pitch the aircraft forward, it's going to be really hard to rotate the aircraft.
The other issue is that the full failure happened at the worst possible moment: when the aircraft was low, slow, and trying to transition into a different phase of flight. The pilots were already working hard with the landing, and didn't have time to really figure out what the heck the plane was trying to do. Hence the bounce that caused the engine damage.
As to the automation question, I feel like we're honestly at a good point with aircraft like the Airbus series, the 777-X, and the 787. This incident, along with AA1549, and UA232 are fantastic case studies in why we're always going to need trained aviators monitoring what the computers are doing. These are all incidents where a computer would have absolutely crashed the plane (or made the wrong decision) because the accident sequences were completely unforeseen. Generally, computers are great at dealing with things that are known unknowns, but they're terrible at dealing with unknown unknowns.
@@MrKeserian I don't know... If I'd get a repeated issue with my horizontal stabiliser computers once, I complete agree with resetting the system. A second time ... questionable, but OK, but when it comes on a thrid, fourth, fith time and MY ASS is in that plane then I'd like to sort that out before everything goes as far south as it did on this flight. I understand why they decided to continue - time is money, and they probalby needed the plane back in service ASAP. In so far this was a blessing in disguise, but still.
@@KaiHenningsen I can tell you right now that it is never going to be possible to fully automate pilots out of their jobs. Aircraft have literally hundreds of little subsystems that have to work, and if just the right handful of subsystems fail, such as in this particular incident right here, you have an aircraft that is absolutely no longer capable of flying itself without some serious creativity and ingenuity. Computers are (currently) not capable of that--only humans--and I do not forsee that computers WILL be capable of it anytime in the near future.
Furthermore, a fully-automated aircraft is still wholly dependent upon the maintenance provided to it while it is on the ground. What happens when that maintenance falls short? Cuts corners? Skips steps? Or is just flat-out ignored? You end up with aircraft that literally can not fly themselves when things inevitably break. You end up with aircraft that not even HUMAN PILOTS can fly, in a rare few cases. That's why the tremendous amount of automation built into Airbus aircraft is all designed to Just Quit and hand things over to the pilots whenever anything falls out of the operational parameters that the computers are programmed to expect and be able to operate within. There's a much better chance of a pair of meatbags in the seats up front being able to figure out a solution to a problem so complex a computer can't creatively think its way around it and bringing the aircraft down in as many whole pieces as possible.
My favorite story is about one time that we were having a problem with a helicopter.
We had to call Germany to talk to an engineer. He insisted that we didn’t have a problem. “It was not designed to fail in that mode”. Well it did.
We figured it out on our own. We sent a detailed report to the US based technical representative for the company.
Germans do not do mistakes. Don't try to argue with them. But humbly asking for help, then they may listen to.
Something tells me the engineer was French, not German.
@@atzuras I do NOT agree on this... my experience, Germans always where verry kind and humble when i came in the picture and they always said to their coleagues, don't argue with him or he will hit you with the right page on the flight procedure manuals as wel as with the maintenance manual.
Still the helicopter story sounds funny and i'm sure it is genuine ;)
@@atzuras it's not designed to fucking fail
it is like debugging a program. When you have eliminated all the other possibilities, the impossible may be possible (I had it once where True was False because I was importing files where someone had the breautiful idea of redefining False.... But with plane software, I would expect the conception to try to account for these unexpected failures and reconverge when possible to a good state or at least give human the right info and control....not so easy , we have seen so many wrong cases
In my mind, I'd want a 7 on automation, but with a catch. imo there should always be a purely mechanical backup system so that in the event of a total systems failure of the automation, the pilot still has full control of all flight controls. Something like being locked out of pitch control because of computers crashing, however unlikely, is absurd to me.
I kinda understand what you mean, but that is, by design, impossible. Because all FBW-Systems are not using linear inputs, the inputs are intentionally designed to work differently in different situations. I don't know about Boeing, but in Airbus the FBW-System isn't controlling Elevators, Ailerons and Rudders, it is controlling G's, Turnrates and Sliprates. And the computer adjusts the amount of control surface deflection to achieve that dependent on all parameters it has. In a somewhat very simplified way one could say Airbus-Pilots tell the plane what they'd like to do and the plane figures out how to achieve that. The new Boeing-FBW-Systems are AFAIK, equally separated.
And that is why you can not do the same mechanically.
@@brkr78 There's a reason I'm just a layman lol
If you wanted that way, stick to riding 737. Even the 777 especially 787 have full FBW control. The different is that Airbus is more upfront and make the plane feel automated. Boeing on the other hand hides their FBW and make the plane natural to fly. Even though it is fully fly by wire behind it.
The biggest planes that have cable-connected flight controls and surfaces are all that both pilots can do to move when power assist fails.
@@algrayson8965 Yeah, but that hasn't been implemented in any Airbus for more than 30 years and no new Boeing for at least 20. We are talking about planes from the 50ies, up until the 80ies, or maybe even early 90ies. Even small(er) regional planes begin to switch to pure FBW in their newest versions - not all, but methinks that is only a matter of time.
My favourite airline incident is the Japanese pilot who told atc that a giant walnut was following his plane
That’s one for the history books tbh. I’ll probably do that one for Halloween
A walnut? Was this pilot a paranoid squirrel in disguise?
@@benr.4238 Possibly, it was a ufo incident, you should take a look, it's funny as hell
Haha can’t believe it
Which flight was that
Is it Japan airlines 1628?
Automation is great, to a point. When it is made to lock an operator out of the controls upon failure, it goes too far.
I don't think the pilots were ever 'locked out' of the controls, they still had full control of the trim wheels and engine throttles to fly the plane as third redundancy in an anticipated two computer failure like this video.
That is totally misinterpreted. The balance of automation here was very good, all they needed to do is to react to the failures and land. And when the system gave up, they should have follow ECAS message MANUAL TRIM ONLY, so there was a lack of crew action, not the automation problem. However, don't get me wrong, I don't totally blame the crew, it wasn't that easy to figure the situation out. Still maintenance problem in the first place.
@@oakld I do agree about the procedure you proposed. Not doing so makes it a repeated pilot failure !
A dunky doesn't hit the same stone twice..... It's a blamable accident !
But it wasn't made to lock the operator out on failure, that just happened to be the unintended consequence
So we have a few Homer Simpson's that keep resetting what the computer is trying to warn them about. "Stupid Computer!"
To be honest, it's not only their fault. How much information does the system provide to diagnose what just happened? If none, then they follow the manual. The manual says "just reset it, it'll be fine". At this point they're out of options.
Manufacturers restricting information out of systems is a major cause of issues. Intelligent feedback is hard, though.
@@StCreed yeah but when the same system keeps failing, you should probably land and check that system.
Automation is like fire in the home. It's great until it gets out of control. What you need is automation whose failure modes are obvious and intelligible to the humans. I have a lot more respect for the system that says "I give up; your airplane" than the one that says "something's wrong but I'm going to keep controlling things; fyi".
But then you get incidents caused by the automation turning itself off during a high-stress situation and the pilots failing to realize that and react accordingly.
That shouldn’t be a problem if there’s proper notification and warning that that manual flying is required, and all automation is disabled.
What you describe is the "fail fast" programming school of thought, which is the one I subscribe to.
When I do flow control I will program in all known expected conditions, all the abnormal conditions I can think of, and then always add a catch-all else clause where I just throw a runtime exception and brutally abort everything.
I add this in everywhere, even in places where I know it's impossible, in which case it's something along the lines of _throw new InternalException("condition xxx evaluated to something impossible"); //this should not be possible_
You'd be surprised at how many _impossible_ exceptions I've seen thrown over the years, and having the log of exactly what condition was unexpected helps debugging massively. Usually what happens is that months or years down the line something else upstream gets changed, resulting in undefined behavior downstream because of an interaction that got overlooked, and if you don't have all these apparently paranoid checks it takes absolutely ages to figure out why some random value sometimes turns out null at the end of the pipeline, especially if the error only gets noticed in production and you don't have the debug logs.
If you always crash on unexpected conditions the error is also much more likely to get caught in testing - the tester can accidentally overlook a blank field, but they can't overlook a complete crash.
What you need is aircrews that can fly.
This is too simple, life's not. Even Boeing is packed with layers of automation, there are thousands of uncomanded processes going on every flight. Human being is long time too limited to contain everything that's on board and totally useless when it comes to analyzing it from the very principles. When things go wrong, human is unable to look in a fractions of seconds through thousands of switches, valves positions, voltage and pressure indications, etc. It's the automation that does that, *trying* to simplify it to two, three or four important things that the pilot actually can understand and use in his decisions. When it comes to decisions, we humans tend to make them wrong especially in stress situations and that's why the manufacturers take away more and more authority from pilots. One particular important reason for this is, that computers and algorithms are *scallable*, while we, humans, are not. The automation *is* here, way more than some people admit. In the end of the day, it's extent depends on costs - cost of lives and money. And guess who's slowly loosing in the long run.
"Let's see, 10w40, ISO 32, or perhaps vegetable? Anyway, I won't sign off on it so what the hey, parts is parts and oil is oil!"
one time when i got my oil changed Jiffy Lube didn’t tighten the filter and oil got everywhere but nobody died, yet.
There was another oil change incident where maintenance left three o-rings off the drain plugs on all three engines. Yep. All three engines failed but fortunately they got one restated and were able to land. So, if the computers don't crash the plane, and the pilots don't crash the plane, and mech failure doesn't crash the plane, maintenance will crash the plane.
You got anymore details on that for me Howard? Maybe a flight number? It sounds interesting
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation Well, I've put three links up for you but they don't show up. Enter this phrase into youtubes search bar. eastern airlines flight 855
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation i believe you may have covered that incident, i think he's referring to the lockheed l1011 incident
@@howardjohnson6584 Then the guys who designed the seals say, “No go! Too cold!” but the managers say, “No more delays. Lift Off!”
Automation is an amazing aid when done properly. Automation oversight is amazing when done properly. And here lies the issue. Large complicated machines need the automation and should have it, but they also need good over sight systems. And when those fail only highly trained and competent can recover them without any warning.
So yes, more advanced automation is great and we need more of it but training in that automation is just as critical.
(I work in a factory with automated equipment, sometimes something simple and easy brings everything to a stop because of lack of training and nothing else)
Rube Goldberg machines.
Plane crashes have been significantly reduced by automation. Pilots need to be properly trained to understand how to best use the automation on board their aircraft.
Otherwise, 737-MAX ...
That's ridiculous. The automation is there so as to be invisible to the pilots. It is the obligation of those designing the automation systems to be cognisant of the failure cases. When there is a failure it is not down to the Pilot, it is down to the inherent Hubris of the automation designers.
Max was all about not revealing the failure cases.
Yes, I agree. Some pilot has become less trained because of automation. Air France flight 447 happens because the co pilot pitch up the plane without anyone knowing it and lack of training when the autopilot was disabled due to a frozen pitot tube. Despite Automation helping, pilot still need to be trained to know what to do if something happen/understand how it works
@@alphalunamare But most crashes in the commercial aviation was due to pilot error though
Sorry dude, don’t know your name. I am blown away by both the detail of your “mini” investigation (which is anything but mini), & the clarity with which you tell it. Even as a microlight pilot (near the lower end of the flying food chain!), I can grasp exactly what you’re saying. Well done!
I'd still rather be the one with ultimate authority over a computer.
This has nothing to do with having authority. It was basically computers not able to carry out the commands
@@tomstravels520 Did you not hear the question at the end of the video?
I’d need to do some research, but I’d love to know what flight mode the aircraft was in during this? Was it possible to switch into direct law and regain control over the elevator? It’s my understanding that this is always the case.
Airbus a/c do have this function.
@@EstorilEm problem with modern airliner, yes Boeing included, is that they do away with the cables. So the sidestick/yoke have no direct connection to the flight controls. This done mostly to reduce weight and conserve fuel. The difference is that Boeing try a lot to make the plane feel like conventional aircraft.
My man, I've been watching your episodes since very early on, and I'm stoked that they are getting the props (no pun intended) they deserve. Do you release these as podcasts (or is that something you would consider)? I'd love to be able to listen to these on my drive to work. Stunning work mate!
It seems like doing the sequence on the simulator to somehow do as this flight did was an enormous job.
I, for a long time, was sceptical towards fly-by-wire and was somehow scared of having something like a "middle-man" in my controls. However, i've been enjoying MSFS2020 and particularly the FBW A320 neo for half a year now and it's just great how easy this thing is to fly compared to an older airliner. ELAC, FAC and SEC buttons and their functions i became aware of after watching videos like yours, especially Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501 should be mentioned here. As a hobby sim pilot, i'm even deactivating SEC1 for my landing challengenges sometimes, because manual trim gives me better behaviour during flare than the (ASOBO/FBW) flight computer offers me :D So, for your statistics, my answer to your question is: as much automation as possible, as long as it is always possible to override it.
Wrote my answer, then looked down and realized I could have just said ditto this ^
The MSFS has a pretty bad flight model though. The default FBW is pretty much non existent. I havent yet tried the modded aircraft, how does it compare to say the fslabs a320 or the default Aerofly FS a320?
Again, great content! Thank you! I really appreciate what you bring to TH-cam.
After watching dozens and dozens of these videos I gotta say pilots earn every penny they're paid. Modern commercial and military aircraft are so sophisticated and complicated. These men and women have years invested in learning how to lift tons of metal into the air, and to get it to its destination and back on Earth safely. Respect.
10 for automation. With every incident, the algorithms get adjusted and the same mistake will never be repeated again unlike with humans.
In the James Bond movie “From Russia With Love,” his exchange dialogue with another to confirm other agent was legit went like this: Bond -“May I borrow a match”; Agent - “I use a lighter”; Bond - “Better still”; Agent - “Until they go wrong.”
From your well informed summary of this incident and others of other incidents, it appears to me that most modern incidents have some combination of technical and pilot error. Technology has done well to avoid the more typical pilot errors resulting from distractions and inattention - computers don’t fall asleep at the switch. But I worry about some situations unlike this one where the computers won’t allow pilot input because their programming is sure that the pilots are making a mistake - like the A320s where pilots made quick upward inputs to avoid the ground but the plane wouldn’t let them due to programming to avoid stalls - leading to crash landings, or the Qantas flight 72 where the computers made sudden downward pitches beyond control of pilots slamming passengers to the ceiling.
To answer your question, on the 1-10 scale, I’d prefer a 7 level of automation. That’s enough to prevent most typical pilot errors without causing situations that won’t allow pilot correction in the remote chance that the computers, despite redundancy, are wrong.
Yes, the fly by wire technology of Airbus is great but sometimes doesn’t allow pilots to correct the rare situation where the computers are wrong. One A320 crash resulted from 1 of 3 sensors differing with the other 2 so computer rejected the odd sensor. Turned out the 2 that agreed were wrong and they crashed. So much for redundancy.
A more mixed computer/pilot control relationship would accomplish the level 7 answer to your question and I think Boeing’s format more closely achieves that. But neither system will avoid the perfect storm situations such as the Max crashes where the technology fails but the pilots failed to implement the long standing procedure in manuals to get out of situation (Continuous uncommanded trim change).
So if James Bond were flying, he’d say to use a lighter, but keep a book of matches in your pocket just in case. And in the case of some third world airlines, make sure the matches aren’t wet!
The 737MAX crashes happened in large part because Boeing allowed customers to choose not to spec a second angle of attack sensor. They could save $80,000 by ordering only one sensor.
@@algrayson8965 Right - bad idea. Just like when Airbus allowed customers to opt out of ground sensing warnings and Air Inter in 1991 didn’t install them leading to 2 incidents within a month of each other from the same cause, also like Max. One A320 crew set the rate of descent indicator knob thinking they were descending at 3.2% per minute (800 ft./min.) when they were actually descending at 3.2 thousands of ft. per minute in low clouds conditions. The configuration of the instrument was poorly designed causing pilot confusion. The first A320 crashed killing 87 and the second a few weeks later luckily emerged from cloud cover in the nick of time to avoid disaster.
That error on the part of Airbus was just as significant the Max engineering flaw but only 87 died instead of 346 so virtually nobody today remembers Airbus’ mistake.
We may only have 2 major aircraft makers, but we can’t have 2 different standards for judging them.
@@algrayson8965 bit like offering Airlines the option of a single pilot Airbus or Boeing isn't it ?
Lawyers have this covered.. as follows.
A swimming Club has looked to install a non slip mat from the kids change room to the pool edge.
as kid usually RUN from change rooms to the pool.
They then got told they can save 15% if the 10m run was trimmed back 1,5m & the Club agreed. Y not?
Till 9 yo Jenny + twin Johnny slipped n cracked their heads at the un-matted wet 9m mark.
Parents sue club.
Club admits, on Q they DID install non slip mat to prevent foreseeable slip injuries, if mat wasn't there..
But are STUMPED to now explain the CRITICAL 15% less non slip matting GIVEN the whole non slip matting exercise is undisputed by both sides as a safety critical item. CHECKMATE !
@@JoshSasger Any manufacturer could always have done more...for whatever purpose. Ford Model Ts didn't have front brakes, seat belts or airbags.
Everything in engineering involves a compromise between better and more expensive. It gets to a point where 1% improvement increases cost by 10×. A “reasonably” safe car for $50,000? How about a safer car that is fundamentally the same as the $50,000 model but costs $100,000? A few will spend $1 million+ for a car that will go 250+ mph but if they or something crashes it at 120 mph the occupants are thoroughly dead.
Great descriptions! Really helps the story come to life. Good work!
You do an amazing job with these vids!
"If you're still watching this video"..
Adorable.
Subscribed.
Those student pilots started coding instead.
The programming and redundancy was perfect 🤷🏻♂️
@@EstorilEm and then?
Thanks for the awesome video (as usual)!
I’m currently in Tallinn and it blew me away to hear this place mentioned in your video while binging some of them. Love your videos by the way! Keep ‘em coming!
Smartlynx are only interested in making money, and not providing customer service. When you see they have female pilots from Serbia you know they are scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I'll stick to the old McDonnell Douglas aircraft DC8's and DC9's, as we all know DC stands for Direct Cables :-)))
…but that's not true of the DC-10. Rather infamously, one of them lost *all* flight surface controls when all of the hydraulic systems were breached.
@@Kromaatikse Which is why I didn't mention DC 10's *sighs* It was meant as tongue in cheek, you know like the saying if it ain't Boeing I ain't going.
Aren't cables not just thick wires ? Fly by Wire !!!!
@@pascalcoole2725 Lolz! Got me.
dc??? direct crash...
I think you’re using animation instead of random clips, and if so that’s awesome!
Hah! Yah it's gameplay footage
Your detailed presentation(s) is really informative & helpful! I worked in a major aircraft mfg company years ago. When I first saw what goes on in building large commercial or mil aircraft was amazing. But this was before the internet arrived and most people never know how some very-very small error in judgment, poor maintenance practice, or a new mode can create a disaster immediately or years later.
Thanks for the time you put into these first rate
For automation on a plane I'd be comfortable with a 7 on a 10 Scale. Honestly, the plane could be 100% automated and I'd still want a pilot to fly to cruising altitude, be involved in any course correction, and to descend for landing.
Yeah same, I think nobody would be comfortable with a fully automated plane. We want a human to have the final say.
"This... is the story..."
What a great channel! I'm not sue how I got here, but I really enjoyed your way of presenting the video, and the amazing graphics! I've subscribed and look forward to your next tale!
Thank You for all of the work you do!
My pleasure don!
Wow ! I simply love your channel and your presentation. I think , Automation is ment to ease out repetitive tasks, and reduce the workload of the pilots. But making it complex has its own downside. On a scale of 1 to 10, I think Automation should be about 6, but the Ultimate control should be with the pilots, and they should be able to override, if the situation calls for it.
"7"......Too much automation makes system complicated and pilots lethargic...
Wow, such well articulated details and graphics.
I did stay with you through the end. Lol
Much of this was “over my head”, as I am not a pilot, but your voice and style kept me interested.
On a scale of one to ten for automation, I would say 8.
Also there was an add for ‘Sea Foam’ ultimate oil stabilizer at the end of my episode.
Thanks 🤩
I am two minded about automation, because when it works, it works better than a human, but the state of the art systems are very brittle against small failures and edge cases.
This incident proves that their redundant computer system is not robust against an adversarial. They had at least quad redundancy (or more?) for computers, but two small "insignificant" error brought down the plane, completely crashing all automation. (The final redundancy: humans, saved themselves from a fiery crash)
Designing against a hypothetical adversarial which can make small errors, at exactly the wrong time, is nightmarishly complex (and not possible with human minds), but it would be nice to have actually robust automation on the modern planes.
03:01 huge pilot error to pull up the flaps and the gear when low and slow. They hit the runway hard, damaging the engines..
Tbh, if they didn't get more speed the treeline would have gotten them. And they really didn't have a lot of time to consider the options.
@@StCreed You dont get more speed when you open the gear doors, you slow down instead. You have to wait to clean obstacles before opening the gear doors..
Depends on how good the pilot is, sometimes I think the automation can over time turn a good pilot onto Rusty complacent one which is just human nature. Training is the key, no matter how much automation is in an aircraft even as a student pilot I knew the basics of flying and those basics need to be gone back to often enough so automation does not create dangerous situations
It seems nowadays the pilots know how to take off and then put the plane on automatic until it's time to land. If something happens during midnight they don't know what to do. At least some of them.
Awesome video!!! Fantastic job!!! 👏🏻👏🏻💪🏻
Yay, this was my tip to the channel! 🎉😍 Thanks for actually doing something with my tip!
How about doing the Ricky Nelson crash, there was a lot of controversy and scandal involving the use of “free basing” cocaine until the truth came out.
I think we are at a point where we have a good amount of automation in commercial aviation. Pilots make errors, but so do the engineers that design the automation systems. In cars i believe we need a lot more automation. Modern cars with automatic emergency braking, adaptive cruisecontrol and even the "crude" auto-steering of a few luxury-cars like Tesla is a huge step forward for a big killer(Car-accidents) in modern times. I love driving older cars where you are in control of everything, but for simple transportation and security, nothing beats a modern car. Older manual car for enjoyment/the track and a newer, automated car for transportation.
The problem with automating cars these days is that people are relying too much on that automation and are forgetting some of the finer points of driving that only come with experience. I asked a driver once why they were following the car in front so close, their reply was it's ok, I've got ABS so I can stop really quick........... wrong.
That being said, I think automation for cars will serve us better on roads like highways where there are no junctions, pedestrians or oncoming traffic. Providing the system is working properly, without the human element there will never be any crashes.
Aircraft already have a level of automation that brings into debate wether a pilot needs to be there at all.
No pedestrians or oncoming traffic on highways? Usually, yes... Occassionally even planes did an emergency landing there ;)
@@rainerleicht4604 And therein lies the problem with automation, it can't deal with a situation that it isn't expecting. It would require a human to take action to solve the problem.
I hate car automations like the ones you described. I know exactly what I wanted the car to do, and I hated having a system trying to stop me.
I want more control of the automation.
Automated stop-start which stops the engine every time you're stopped, then restarts it. It kills the engine for maybe 1 to 3 extra mpg and is dangerous as it leads to a lag time.
Some people are very quick to put the blame on a pilot. Given the enormous amount of details they have to cope with I'm totally amazed they can remember so much when things go wrong, the pilots are human and humans do make mistakes. I am not a pilot I can't fly any aircraft and I have nothing but respect for these guys, I have traveled quite a lot. Thank you for getting us from A to Be safely.
Wow you share interesting unkown crashes i never knew, like the other TWA800, keep up the good work 👍
6/10 for me. I want the pilot to have full control if needed.
10/10 for me. With human pilots, there is always the chance they will make mistakes. Cyberdyne Systems Model 101, also known as the A-800 Aviator, doesn't make mistakes and has a neural network processor, i.e. learning computer, so it exponentially becomes a better pilot the more it flies. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear, and it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you have reached your destination.
@@hmartinspliff A great feature of AI is that all individual units that speak the same language learn together. When one encounters a situation that, being totally unanticipated, is not programmed to handle, even if a human has to take over, all AI software that is interconnected learns from the experiences of each individual unit.
Cause of Crash - Incompetence and complacency of the trainers.
Did you even watch the episode?
Yes, the pilots were a bit complacent for sure, but all the safeguards that were meant to protect them also failed.
Unfortunately, the more alarms abs systems you build into something, the more information overload you put on the human element in the soup and in the end we become complacent to errors and alarms.
I see the same thing in shipping.
Oh and it should be noted, I am not against automation, I just think the human element need to be taken into account when designing these things.
Nobody can be 100 percent familiar with an aircraft type so why you get certain alarms and their activation condition is pretty much impossible to learn unless the pilot also designed the aircraft from ground up by him or herself.
@@JohannesKonow This wasn't even close to information overloading. Basically a single message. See the accident report available online in English.
Eric Lozen, above i wrote my view on automation and opinion about the accident.
For this one time i tried to behave myselve......
I am a manufacturing engineer, not a pilot, but I suspect the ideal amount of automation is 7 or 8 on a scale of 1-10. Part of my job over the past 30+ years is “mistake proofing” production process - not nearly as complex as flying an airplane. One thing I discovered is the more a process is modified to eliminate human error, the people operating the equipment understand it less and less. The end result is that the makes a very consistent product when everything is working properly, but when something goes wrong the folks on the line don’t know what to do about it.
By relying too much on automation, pilots may eventually become less able to deal with a malfunction plane.
Great video; keep up the great work. Thank you
Thanks Erik!
STICK AND WIRE! I grew up on equipment. I would know when something was wrong by sound and feel.
So did I. Bailed out of aviation in 1990 just when all that crap was being introduced. Thank god I got out in time. You flew the airplane by sound, sight and what your multiple instruments were telling you, not a bloody computer. Jesus, makes me reconsider flying now if the covid marshal law ever ends.
Irrespective of the fault with multiple resets, the trainer showed great presence of mind. Remember this case from avherald years back. Not many will understand. He saved the fuselage and lives. Lovely channel
Edit: automation is a wonderful tool, but only as long as it's monitored
Very informative, clear, easy to understand.
What a great vid, well done!
Why did they keep training when their where obvious and repeated errors.
The training pilot/pilots should be fired and lose their licences.
They were following the procedures of resetting the computer and seeing if the fault clears. There was no guidance in how many resets could be made
In terms of automation I ideally either want a 9, a 9.5, or a 10.
The more automated the better. More automation allows for pilot attention elsewhere, as well as automated reactions to certain warnings or problems. I do want pilot intervention, but only if its statistically more plausible that the pilot will save the aircraft, than the computer does.
How on earth can someone who has only operated an automatic aircraft have any hope of intervening??
@@Gingerharry2011 You train a pilot on manual control, or you have pilots on these aircraft that have experience prior to the automation shift.
Regardless, I would rather have a higher degree of automation. It is not only statistically safer, but also smart especially with the current pilot shortage.
Automation is superior to human input when well developed. Self driving for example will greatly reduce road accidents and make driving safer and more efficient.
You mention the MAN PITCH TRIM ONLY warning, but I think the related ECAM message "F/CTL L + R ELEV FAULT" (that's the actual ECAM warning that comes together with the CRC) is much more spectacular - seeing this on a GA is a nightmare :)
I've studied this accident extensively and I was really surprised that Airbus wasn't aware of some of the failure modes that were encountered here (ELAC PITCH FAULT due to OVM failures was a known scenario, but the dual SEC loss due to bounce wasn't listed anywhere in official Airbus documents I could find). I was also surprised to find out how strange some of the ARINC busses are synchronized, as that is part of what brought this bus down. The ARINC busses that the SEC lanes pull data from are actually synchronized, but the data sets are not neccessarily synchronized as some data is pulled from a LGCIU that in turn needs to pull from the other LGCIU, as the related Shock Absorber Compression sensor is offside. As completly different pull intervals are used, there is a maximum window of 120 ms where a SEC lane works with stale data, thus causing the "if more than 1.02s BGND then 20s flight law latch" condition to activate in only a single lane, if the aircraft experiences a ~1.02s bounce with highly specific timing conditions. This is effectively a common mode failure, as it is likely to affect both SECs simultaneously. This is normally not an issue, as you're not going to do a touch and go with SECs engaged in pitch, but if you just lost your ELACs, well... We saw it here. I know the A320 is 80's design, but I don't understand all decisions taken here. There are definetly common mode failures in SEC design that could have easily been avoided with a different bus design, but yeah it is how it is. Maybe the alternatives had other issues, I don't know. I presume that it works different on the newer Airbuses.
Airbus has reacted to this accident in a number of ways, notably modifiying the computer reset table in the QRH to forbid any ELAC reset in response to ELAC PITCH FAULT messages. There's also a new ELAC software version in the works (or even in already in rollout) that is apparently capable of being a bit more robust against missing override signals, hopefully preventing this failure scenario in the future. The training manual also no longer tells pilots to touch the trim wheel on touch and go's. The SEC issue is harder to tackle as it's fully a design issue, not a bug you can easily work around. I've heard they work on a new SEC software that handles bounce on touchdown better, also preventing this in the future.
Not sure if you were aware as it wasn’t mentioned in this video but another thing that didn’t help was the spoilers were not armed. If they had been it was less likely the aircraft would have bounced
Excellent episode guys ! A combination of a lot of automation and pilots having an complete understanding of the automation of the aircraft type they are flying. Unfortunately in the Max 8 case the new automation wasn’t conveyed to the pilots. Re this episode the wrong oil used that set up a scenario. So important that mechanics double & triple check what parts and lubricants are to be installed. Thanks heavens that they all survived.
Lucky??? These guys continued to fly an unserviceable airplane.
Exactly! Idiots!
This kind of thing, while rare, is exactly why fly-by-wire blows.
I want 0 and 10. A plane that can fly itself, but also can be flown manually when situations dictate. Excellent video.
Very informative. Illustrations are helpful
69 likes and 0 dislikes. Nice
A comment
A reply
@@MiniAirCrashInvestigation Another Reply
A reply to the reply
I know nothing about aviation, I am a natural scientist but your videos are so educational and I enjoy watching them. Keep up the good work. Thanks
Very informative, thank you for sharing
TSTAY RICH BY SPENDING LIKE THE POOR AND HE RICH WITHOUT STOPPING THEN THE POOR STAY POOR BY SPENDING LIKE THE RICH YET NOT INVESTING LIKE THE RICH.
You're right ma,
that's why I have to start forex trading 2months ago, now am making constant profit from it
Natural, there’s a lot of math involved in forex trading,
but this is often presented in forms of daunting technical charts, indicators, patterns.
Trading systems allow you to limit the factor of emotional influence on decision-making,,
As an aviation geek, and not knowing until 3 years later that this happened on my 14th birthday, I have no words.
Another great video !!!
This was absolutely fascinating.
Interesting videos great job subbed and liked
Another excellent presentation.
Most awesome video ever and top notch ex-plane-ation! I think there is a happy medium with automation and pilot control. Pilots have to be computer nerds as well and never stop monitoring what is going on. I recently was on a flight where the pilot announced he was letting the plane land itself. 😬 was my reaction, but that landing was the most gentle I have ever experienced😁
Having learned how to fly fixed wing Piper Cherokee aircraft when I was a young teenager. When my father got his private pilot's license. I always went up with him during his flying lessons with the instructor. I had the outdated flight charts, i.e., last month's version of the terrain. Which doesn't change all that much, month to month. And that was all manual flight with old-fashioned steam gauge instruments.
It was much different from the Boeing cockpit for the Lockheed F-22 fighter jet, multimillion dollar military simulator was. Which was a tad more complicated. As, I had never flown any kind of other aircraft, 30 years earlier in my life. When I happened upon this unique opportunity. To test out the new Boeing design cockpit for the F-22 by Lockheed Martin Corp. On about 6+ million dollars worth of computers. And the actual flight cockpit. It was wild! What a thrill. What an incredible rush! They just let me loose. Other military pilots asked me if I had flown F-14's, 50's, 60's? I said no. Just a Piper Cherokee 140 when I was between 13 and 15 years of age. 30 years ago. They asked why I didn't join the Air Force. I told them I tried. I was 4F. They told me to go 4 letter word, to, F myself. But they didn't put it exactly in that manner. They were more polite. Far more polite. As they told me I needed a Masters Degree in something like Electrical Engineering. If I wanted to fly jet fighters. I said that's okay. I'll fly anything. They said no. And so it goes.
So go ahead and try flying an, F-22. Without any actual flight instruction.-Never having flown anything like that before in your life. I can tell you that being a motorcyclist for over 30 years, helped. I didn't die. I know how to bank into a turn. I just never expected a 90° bank. Holy shit! And then the afterburners. I didn't know it had afterburners? I knew about super cruise. I didn't know that also included afterburners. When the Boeing guy was telling me to shove my throttles. I said they won't go any farther. He said shove harder. And it clicked forward. Then all the gauges and the sound changed. And it becomes difficult to think that fast. When you are in your mid-40s. As I was then. As it was just coming into operational service. With the new Boeing cockpit. Working with Lockheed I guess? I guess these guys get together for the military. These are big contracts. And I guess they spread them around amongst each other.
So on a scale of 1 to 10. I love less is more VFR, flying. More like a lackadaisical Sunday excursion through the mountains on a motorcycle. No need to go anywhere fast.
But there is no denying. When you are lusting for that super experience. Nothing beats the challenge of that complexity, that responsiveness. And I'll fly by wire! Oh yeah!
So I like both 1's and 10's. But then 1 would probably be a Cessna 150. So make that a 2 for a Piper Cherokee. Because you don't have as good of view with the wings underneath you. In a Cessna 150 you are just sitting there with your face hanging out looking at the ground. So that's a 1. It's a little more of a challenge to fly low wing fixed wing aircraft.
The following year I got to try a Northrop Grumman A-10 multimillion dollar simulator. It was much simpler than that F-22. And all steam gauge cockpit. But I found that harder to fly by hydraulics. The force feedback was rude. It was far greater than the F-22. I was bewildered by that. Why should the A-10 be harder to fly? Because it's less complex. No computers controlling anything. Meaning you have to be a better than computer gamer pilots. That probably find the F-22 far easier to fly? Because it's just a for real computer game you can get killed in. Something no computer gamer would want to miss out on. I don't play any computer games. The F-22 is the closest I have come. I have no interest in playing computer games. Much less baseball, soccer, football. I like basketball. Every time I snap my fingers. They jump. They can't hear me snapping my fingers. But they jump anyhow. So I pretend I'm doing it. I wasn't pretending that F-22 simulator. That was for real. What a thrill!
MCAS need not apply. I don't want to be on a plane that has MCAS. As that would only signify. That the pilots really don't know how to fly. That particular plane they are going to fly you upon your head. I don't think so. I think I'll drive.
I'm not good with numbers
RemyRAD
Precise, logical and good wrap up - including a nearly philosophical ending. :D
I think every grade of automation has it’s own challenges. In the end the combined quality of construction, maintenance, education, tests, experience and learning from faults sums up to higher security. Reality is always complex.
It seems like whenever there is a 1 in a billion chance of something happening, it happens! I'd start practicing the procedure for engine ingesting a bird, pressurization problem, toilet clogged, passenger freaking out, airspeed disagreeing on both screens, coffee maker not working, smoke coming from cabin, monster on wing ripping it apart, very low on fuel and bad fish for dinner! Pretty low chance of all those things happening but that's what makes it likely!
Great video, as always!
I have worked on this type aircraft and others as a mechanic and pilot and find the amount of animation you use very good. Keep up the good work. You're doing great! CFIAM /A&P JOE COVINO. Lake Havasu City, Arizona.
I'm at about 5 or 6 on automation. Automation certainly has it's benefits. Computers can do a lot of the routine tasks without ever getting bored or tired. However humans have the ability to think and problem solve in ways that computers at least today just can't, and that has saved planes in the past. Quantas flight 32 is a great example of that.
Wonderfully informative video.
Very interesting video and very happy they all walked away. A tough flight for trainees certainly. I think I'd go with 9/10 automation with the idea of lightening the pilot workload but allowing them to take complete control if needed.
I like your videos! They're not too complex for my lazy brain; but they also tell the basic things to know🙂
Computer One: Yay, we're flying!
Computer Two: No, we're on the ground.
One: Flying!
Two: Ground!
Both: I quit. Let the pilots figure it out.
I flew the A320 as captain for 5 years before I retired. With over 35 years in transport airplanes, I liked Airbus the least and was glad to get off of it.
Nice video mate
I think what you do is great thanks very much...
Hello,
Here is a comment from an automation guy who worked almost continuously in the field (food and beverage for over 40 years).
Automation has a few advantages such as:
Speed: Automatic systems outperform any human on tasks they can perform.
Reliability: When properly maintained, automatic systems operate repeatedly without fail. They do not forget, and they do not get tired, they also provide consistent results with very little overall variance
Best conservation of resources: Automatic systems when operated within their confines can provide the most efficient operation repeatedly and countless, they do not lose concentration or vigilance.
Their major drawback is their immense lack of human judgment. This is why for example MCAS in Boeing 737 Max 8 continuously pitches down the aircraft until a crash occurred. A human on the other hand would have realized even if intuitively that something was badly wrong with the Angle of Attack Sensor, at least an experienced and knowledgeable human would.
In summary, a large contribution of Automation is desirable under NORMAL circumstances, but the pilots should always have the last word and the final override. Most importantly the humans I am referring to in this section are fully informed and trained equipment operators. This does not include those that are not informed properly by the equipment vendor or those that are not adequately trained on the equipment.
Thanks for the opportunity to speak my mind
I've been waiting for this one! One thing that is not apparent from the video is, that the engines came into contact with runway, in the "bounce" or forced descend, because the gear was already way in the process of retracting. As a result auxiliary gearboxes beneath/on the sides of engines were damaged and one after another the engines failed. While the root cause is very interesting, this part is also very important.
Excellent job!
Automation like on A320 is great, it made the Hudson River miracle possible by keeping the perfect pitch for water landing
Your videos just keep getting better & better.
As to automaton versus human control of an airliner, I'm uncertain as to where to draw the line so to speak. Boeing's 737 Max comes to mind as an example of automaton that shouldn't have had the upper hand. On the other hand, I don't have total faith in human ingenuity. The later depends a lot on the capabilities of the human which vary all over the map. So, I guess I'll say that it should be about a 50/50 split between man and machine, provided that pilot can override the automation if need be. Sometimes, human beings when faced with a seemingly intractable problem may have a "Eureka" moment, a sudden flash of insight that leads to a solution or they can come up with ways to exploit a system in novel, off label ways. Then again, some people don't cope with novelty all that well.
Sorry, if I've gassed on too long. Thank you for your patience. Kudos.